House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge events in the middle east over the weekend following recent developments involving Iran. The safety of British nationals and our armed forces personnel right across the region is our priority, and we pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women.
Service families make extraordinary sacrifices for our country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well. The Department for Education proudly supports service children, including those in his constituency around Catterick and elsewhere, through targeted funding and clear guidance to schools. Service pupil premium provided £26 million this financial year. These measures address challenges arising from service life so that all service children can achieve and thrive in education.
Rishi Sunak
Can I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks and thank her for her thoughtful answer? I know that we both share a desire to honour the service of those in our armed forces by recognising and addressing the impact on their families. As the MP for Catterick garrison and nearby RAF Leeming, I see in particular the impact on service pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which I know is something that she cares about. My local school leaders have recently implemented the Garrison Assist project, which seeks to address some of those challenges, and in light of the recent White Paper I met with those school leaders. Will she arrange a meeting for them with officials so that they might share their learnings and so that service pupils across our country can get the support that they need and deserve?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, of course; I will be more than happy to make sure that that meeting takes place. I commend the Garrison Assist project for its excellent work. We have looked at the work it has done, and that has given us a strong foundation for many of the changes that we are bringing forward in the SEND system. For example, education, health and care plans and individual support plans will be digital, and that will ensure smoother transitions when children move between local authority areas. It will make a big difference to many children, but particularly children from service families.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am really proud to represent so many service families, but many of those I have been working with are at the sharp end of failures in the SEND system. Regular moves between postings can exacerbate long waits for assessments and leave them particularly exposed to the postcode lottery in SEND provision. As we drive forward long-overdue reforms in this space, how can we make sure that we are centring the experiences of service families so that we can finally do right by those who do so much for all of us?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, as I set out, we are making changes to ensure that there are smoother transitions for service children—for example, by making both education, health and care plans and individual support plans digital—but there is still more that we need to do. All of us across this House have a responsibility to ensure that those who serve our country receive the best possible education and care for their children. I would be very happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend or any other Members who have a local constituency concern in this area.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out ambitious SEND reforms to ensure the system works better for families and children across England. It is clear that families, and the teachers and wider staff trying to support them, have been failed by the system, and that that has had a profound impact on children and young people’s education and wellbeing. We are determined to work with families and professionals around the country to build a system in which children’s needs are met quickly and families do not have to battle because the right inclusive mainstream and specialist support will be available in their communities. We want to hear from young people, parents, teachers and all those who support them, so I ask everyone in the Chamber to bring the voices of their constituents to our consultation.
Yuan Yang
Secondary school students with special educational needs have told me of their struggles with academy trusts in south Reading and Shinfield that have failed to properly prioritise inclusion. Will the Minister set out how the schools White Paper will address that on the part of multi-academy trusts? Will she consider visiting Hartland high school and Oakbank school in my constituency to see the progress they have made on that front?
Georgia Gould
Accountability is a key part of our reforms, which is why Ofsted is now focused on inclusion. We have also brought in Ofsted inspections for multi-academy trusts. I very much enjoyed meeting one of my hon. Friend’s local academies, which is doing brilliant work, but I recognise that we need to put in the right resource and accountability to ensure that that is happening everywhere. I am always delighted to see best practice.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Government’s decision to effectively write off about 90% of Devon county council’s SEND debts. I know that will reassure many parents in my constituency.
Will the Minister tell us how the new school curriculum will give schools the flexibility they need to support children with special educational needs across very different parts of the country, including rural areas such as North Devon?
Georgia Gould
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to ensure that children with SEND have the right support everywhere in the country. That means that we need to ensure that we have the right experts wrapped around schools and that the curriculum meets children’s needs. The Government’s curriculum and assessment review sets out our modern curriculum, including a breadth of learning and enrichment for young people, but we know that it is important to have the right adaptations and flexibilities, and we will be moving forward with that as part of our SEND reforms.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, there is much concern in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency about the off-rolling of children with SEND. Will the Minister elaborate on the reforms in the schools White Paper to ensure that mainstream secondary multi-academy trust exclusions will be measured, and that schools will be incentivised to provide the effective SEND provision that all our children deserve?
Georgia Gould
We are absolutely clear that every school has to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Every teacher has to be trained to be a SEND teacher, and every secondary school will be expected to have an inclusion base. We need to have eyes on children to ensure that no child falls through the cracks. That is why the Department for Education will be more closely monitoring pupil flow, including off-rolling. We will work with trusts and local authority schools when we see large numbers of children who are being off-rolled or are out of education in other ways.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I spend a lot of time visiting schools in my constituency and speaking to the hard-working headteachers about the pressures they are under due to spiralling costs and teacher shortages. With the Government’s proposed reforms placing an additional responsibility on schools to create individual support plans, alongside an ambition for more children’s needs to be met within mainstream schools, how will the Minister ensure that schools do not have to make sacrifices that harm the education of every child?
Georgia Gould
When developing this policy, we learned from the best schools in the country. I visited schools that have individual support plans for every student and wraparound support; those children are absolutely thriving. We want to make sure that that happens in every school. We are investing in a new national digital individual support plan, and we are putting £4 billion into schools and the services that support them to make that a reality.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a specific question about SEND funding during her statement, which she failed to answer, so I will try again with the Minister today. The £4 billion for SEND announced last week, to be paid over three years, which the Secretary of State described as “new money”, is actually from within the Department’s existing spending review settlement, isn’t it?
Georgia Gould
Absolutely, yes; it is money that we have won to put into supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. It is a priority that we take very seriously. I have seen the failure around the country where, for too long, these families have not been listened to, and too many children are out of education; we need to change that. As part of the spending review, we requested and managed to get new investment that we are putting into schools and the “experts at hand” service to wrap around schools on top of the £3.7 billion we are putting into new specialist places. This is generational reform that will make a huge difference.
We want to work in partnership with colleagues across the House, but we still have not heard from the Conservative party. What are its ideas, and what—
Mr Speaker
Order. You are in government, so you do not need to—[Interruption.] Order. When I stand up, please sit. I am trying to be helpful. All these Members are trying to get in, and it is a big day with a big statement coming.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Trust among families with special educational needs is at rock bottom. Their voices have often been ignored—sometimes with tragic consequences—so while many are open to reform, there is real concern that under the Government’s proposals tribunals will lose the ability to direct specific provision in a child’s best interest, with the risk that families will be trapped in an endless doom loop of dispute with local authorities. If Ministers are serious about tackling that adversarial nature, will the Minister confirm how she will prevent it and protect children’s and parents’ rights?
Georgia Gould
We are committed to the tribunal being a backstop for families. We want a much more collaborative system, but we have heard from families how important that backstop of legal rights is, so the tribunal will be there as a backstop if parents are unhappy with the assessment process or the specialist provision package that they have.
When it comes to school placement, hon. Members across the House will know that in many cases, places are being named at special schools that are already full and it is just not safe for them to take those children. Parents will still be able to go to the tribunal, which will be able to quash a decision if it is unhappy, and then the local authority will need to look at it again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department is providing targeted help for Cambridgeshire, including a specialist SEND adviser and sector-led improvement support from Islington council. We are actively monitoring Cambridgeshire’s recovery plan to reduce EHCP backlogs and secure better outcomes for children and families. On Monday, the Secretary of State set out our wider ambition for a SEND system that works better for children and families across England. I encourage parents nationwide to look at our consultation on how we will bring the change our children need.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The EHCP backlog in Cambridgeshire is a significant challenge. I appreciate what the Minister said about the help that is currently in place. Having read the SEND White Paper, I am struggling to see where the immediate impact will come. I had a letter from a constituent at the weekend who thanked me for helping her child get an EHCP after 74 weeks, and I can give examples that stretch up to nearly two years from an EHCP needs assessment being signed off. I am due to meet Cambridgeshire county council on Friday to discuss this issue in more detail. What advice can the Minister give it on how the SEND White Paper will help it to get on top of the EHCP backlog?
Georgia Gould
The hon. Member is right: the timeliness of EHCPs has been unacceptable, and it is something that we are taking seriously. That is why we have put the extra resource in—as part of the schools White Paper, we are putting £200 million directly into councils to support their capacity—but this is something that we will be monitoring closely. I am happy to talk to him in more detail about his concerns.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Mobile phones have no place in our schools. We have published strengthened guidance that is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day. Ofsted will be checking this at every inspection.
John Whitby
What assessment has been made of the magnetic lockable pouches that are being used in some schools as a way of preventing any smartphone access during the entire school day, including lunch time and breaks? Could a national roll-out of those be considered?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent support for the schools in his constituency. Lockable pouches are being used successfully by many schools and are listed in the Department’s examples of best practice approaches. Heads can rightly choose how they implement the mobile phone ban in their school to reflect what works best in context.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Last week, I spent time with teachers and students from Chichester high school who have implemented the use of lockable magnetic pouches. Students told me that this had improved their focus in lessons and, interestingly, that the number of bathroom breaks had halved. Their use has reduced the pull of the addictive features on phones, and teachers report that children are just being children at break times rather than being glued to their phones. I am glad that the Minister shares my ambition to see every school become phone free, but what support are the Government going to provide for schools that have really tight budget restrictions to enable them to achieve this?
Olivia Bailey
I congratulate the pupils and staff at Chichester high school on their great work in this space. It is fantastic to hear that the policy they are implementing is making a difference for the children. Phones should not be in schools, and we are going to be working with schools through our attendance and behaviour hubs, along with our toughened guidance, to make sure we support them to implement this policy properly.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government are looking at ways to protect our children and young people when it comes to the use of screens. It is vital that teachers, parents and young people have strong guidance in place, as we know that excessive screen time can have an impact on eye healthcare, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that any forthcoming guidance addresses eye health and eye conditions such as dry eye disease and myopia?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her important campaigning work in this area and for her important question. I am happy to give her that assurance, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this matter in more detail.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I was a secondary school teacher before I came to this place, and even 10 years ago, although the school guidance was that mobile phones should not be in classrooms, enforcing that was a daily struggle. The presence of mobile phones undermines what schools are trying to do, causing distraction, potentially enabling cyber-bullying and exposing students to potentially harmful online content. We have been through all this. Sometimes it is important that guidance is supported by law, so will the Government turn the existing guidance into law and ban phones in schools?
Olivia Bailey
In the consultation we have announced today, we are consulting on whether a statutory ban is needed, but the action that we have taken addresses the root cause of the problem: the clarity of mobile phone policies and how well they are enforced. The vast majority of schools have a ban in place, but they are just not sufficiently effective. That is what we are working to address.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Secretary of State has bent over backwards to avoid backing a ban on mobile phones in schools. Her Back Benchers are making their views clear, so can she confirm whether she will be whipping them next week to vote against our amendment to ban phones in schools? We look forward to the Government’s 17th U-turn in as many months—the 18th if the one on Iran counts—but if a U-turn is not coming, why does she continue to stand in the way of parents, heads and her own Back Benchers, who simply want classrooms free from disruption?
Olivia Bailey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, but I am afraid he did not listen to the answer I just gave on this exact topic, which is that, in the consultation we announced today, we are consulting on whether a statutory ban is needed. Secondly, it is my firm belief that we have addressed the root cause of the problem, which is that the policies are not sufficiently clear and that they are not being well enough enforced. That is what we are doing by asking Ofsted to inspect these policies, and we are supporting schools through our attendance and behaviour hubs.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department has worked closely with NHS England to monitor, support and challenge Kent in making necessary SEND improvements following its area SEND inspections in 2019 and 2022. This has included regular review meetings, attendance at its SEND partnership board and commissioning the support of an expert SEND adviser.
Rosie Duffield
I recently hosted a constituency SEND roundtable with education leaders and officials from the Department, where teachers stressed yet again that years of underfunding and diminished support services had left schools on their knees, often unable to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children. Unfortunately, the Government’s funding announcement in their White Paper is just a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed to radically improve SEND services in east Kent. Can the Minister tell me what other steps she will take to deliver urgently needed improvements in SEND provision in my constituency, as the funding looks likely to equate to only a few thousand pounds extra per school?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend will know that we have recently announced support to local authorities like Kent in order to address 90% of their deficits. We are building three new special schools in Kent and putting in place £3.7 billion in capital investment, and the allocation for Kent will be coming onboard shortly. We have announced £4 billion of extra investment to wrap around schools, including for speech and language therapists as well as money directly into school budgets.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Our new SEND system will deliver a fully inclusive mainstream education, supported by £4 billion of investment. This Labour Government are tackling one of the thorniest problems that the previous Government left behind, with compassion, investment and reform. Children with special educational needs will access targeted and specialist support through a clear national framework, with individual support plans and stronger education, health and care plans for children with complex needs. We will work with education and health staff to prioritise early intervention and cross-service collaboration to ensure better outcomes for children nationwide.
Josh Newbury
I have spoken with teachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across Cannock Chase, so I know that many schools, such as Longford primary in Cannock and St Joseph’s primary in Rugeley, already have SEND hubs, but with no additional funding, they cannot offer the holistic, teacher-led support they would like to. Can the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities will be given funding to commission specialist bases to finally give many children with SEND needs the support that will allow them to thrive in their local school?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment. We will ensure that every secondary school, and a similar number of primary schools, have that kind of support, and we will work with local authorities to set up specialist bases. As part of our £3.7 billion high-need capital investment, we will create 60,000 new specialist places nationwide to make sure that more children get the specialist support they deserve. I encourage parents and staff in his constituency and across Cannock Chase to share their views during the consultation period.
Ben Coleman
This plan is to be welcomed. It rightly recognises that families of children with SEND are absolutely exhausted from having to fight and battle for the support they need. I therefore strongly welcome the commitment to end that and to give over 1 million children, for the first time, legally enforceable rights through the individual support plans. But concerns have been expressed to me that, without clear enforcement, ISPs risk repeating the same problem, so can the Secretary of State tell me what happens if a school does not follow a child’s plan? Will parents have a legal right to enforce what an ISP says? In short, how will the Government ensure that these are genuine entitlements and not just more promises that families have to battle to see honoured?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know he brings real expertise in this area. I completely understand the point that he makes and that parents have made, given the lack of confidence they have in the system after years of failure, but we are determined to put this right and turn the situation around to make sure that there is more flexible, earlier support available for children. Settings will have a duty to create individual support plans and deliver high-quality provision, drawing on national standards. If schools are not following the plan, it will be clear and obvious. Parents should seek to resolve that directly with the school. Where that does not work, we are strengthening the school complaints process, with independent SEND expertise on the panel. I encourage parents and staff across my hon. Friend’s community to share their views to ensure that we get this right.
Jo Platt
Families in Leigh and Atherton are exhausted from constantly fighting for the SEND support their children need, so I welcome the White Paper’s proposals, including individual support plans and more inclusion bases in schools, because inclusive education benefits everyone. These reforms must come with real oversight and resources. Can the Secretary of State reassure families that the battles for SEND support will end, and explain how local authorities and schools will be properly supported and held accountable?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend. This is about how we can deliver more support earlier to a much larger number of children than is the case at the moment: EHCP-like support without the fight to get that EHCP. There is already brilliant practice out there, showing the best of what can be achieved when schools work together with parents. We saw that last year when I visited Golborne All Saints Catholic primary in her community—a real beacon of what can be achieved. We want to see more of that, and the extra investment will make that possible in more schools and in more parts of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Government have made some welcome commitments on education, but schools are then left to fulfil them. We have seen with free school meals, breakfast clubs and teacher pay awards that each time the funding falls short, and headteachers are left to make up the difference from budgets that are already on their knees. With the “experts at hand” service, can the Secretary of State guarantee that not a single school will have to raid its core budget to deliver this support?
Bridget Phillipson
This is significant extra investment of £4 billion, above and beyond what schools have already been told will be coming their way. In so many of the areas that the hon. Lady mentions, such as breakfast clubs and the expansion of free school meals, we are putting significant extra investment into ensuring that all children can achieve and thrive. We know that so many of the barriers that children face to thrive in education go well beyond the school gate, and our Government are tackling them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Children with SEND do not conform to neat packages and definitions, and those with complex needs require fluctuating levels of support. There is real fear among my constituents that the Government’s proposals will downgrade the level of support available to those with high needs, and may not be flexible enough to respond to changes in children’s needs. Will the Secretary of State define “complexity”, and reassure parents that education, health and care plans will remain open to any child whose needs are not met by individual support plans?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, and I encourage the hon. Lady to share with her constituents not just our SEND consultation but the draft profiles that we have established for specialist provision packages, which will be developed by an independent national panel with health and education expertise. I encourage her constituents to look at that and share their views, so that we can deliver a better support system, including for children with the most complex needs, who are being badly let down by a system that is just not working.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Unlike maintained schools, independent special educational needs settings are not required to respond to consultation requests from local authorities, leading to long delays, children being out of school for extended periods, and conflict when parents believe that their children are not in the right setting. What assurance can the Secretary of State give parents in Mid Dorset and North Poole and elsewhere that any school receiving public money will be required to work with local authorities?
Bridget Phillipson
We will set much clearer overall expectations of local authorities, not least given the huge grant funding investment to bring down their deficits. With that money must come better outcomes for children. That is also true of the independent specialist sector. Although it offers much fantastic provision and caters well for children with complex needs, I am afraid that we cannot continue along this path of allowing money meant for education to be sucked into fuelling the profits of private equity.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We will consider ways to make the student loan system fairer, as the Prime Minister said last week. This Government have already reintroduced maintenance grants and raised the repayment threshold to above average graduate salaries, and we are acting across the board on the cost of living by bringing down inflation and tackling transport, energy and rental costs.
David Chadwick
Many graduates feel as if they are drowning in debt and that they were sold a promise—that a university education would help them to pay off their debts quickly—which has not come true. Their debts continue to mount. Will the Government consider scrapping the planned freeze of the repayment threshold?
Josh MacAlister
We had a Westminster Hall debate about this last week, and it is good to see that the debate continues. We will consider ways to make the system fairer; there are a range of options. The threshold freeze raises £5.9 billion next year, and it is incumbent on any party that is serious about fiscal prudence to set out how it would pay for changes.
Mohammad Yasin
Student loan problems long predate plan 2 loans. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making the system fairer after previous Governments ruined the university funding model. It is wrong that generational inequality is baked into the system, which leaves young people with debts for which they can service only the interest. Does the Minister agree that tinkering is not enough, and that fundamental reform is now urgent?
Josh MacAlister
I recognise my hon. Friend’s description of recent history and how we have ended up where we are today. We will consider ways to make the system fairer. As I say, there are a range of options, and we need to do it carefully.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?
Josh MacAlister
I hope the right hon. Member started by apologising to Sammi in his correspondence, because the last Government froze the threshold on 10 separate occasions. I could list them all. They started in the year that the policy was designed and introduced—the same year in which the commitment was made to increase the threshold in line with inflation, which the Conservatives did not do.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Concerns raised in recent weeks about plan 2 student loans, including unilateral and unexpected change in the repayment terms and repayments based on the consumer prices index, are about the promise of higher education: whether working hard for an undergraduate degree really does result in a good quality of life when graduates face 30 years of student loan repayments on these terms. In the light of these escalating concerns, can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury on this issue, and when we can expect to see the work that he promises to make plan 2 loans fairer for students?
Josh MacAlister
I know the Chair of the Education Committee is looking at these issues and the Government will be very interested in that work. We will set out the details of our work soon. My hon. Friend is right to highlight how transformational higher education can be. I would not want any young person outside this place who is listening to this debate to take away from it that they should not make every step forward to follow their talents. The Brit awards were just a few days ago and including some brilliant British talent, many of whom were on creative arts courses at university.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?
Josh MacAlister
I would like to think there is cross-party agreement that tackling educational inequality is one of the most important things that we can do. It is a shame on our country that we are one of the most unequal when it comes to the relationship between how well a child can do at school and how much money is in their parents’ pockets. The Labour party is all about addressing such inequalities, and that is what this Government are doing. That is in no way at odds with finding ways to make our student loan system fairer and fixing it after the 10 years of freezes on thresholds by the Conservatives that hit working graduates.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Our best start in life strategy is expanding access to childcare, saving working families £7,500 a year and getting record proportions of children ready for school. We work closely with local authorities to ensure the quality and sufficiency of childcare, including across Greater London.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for her response. Late last year, with relatively little notice, the trustees of a pre-school in my constituency, Crofton Early Learners, decided to close the pre-school, meaning that 40 sets of parents had a very anxious Christmas wondering and worrying about what childcare they would have in the new year. The very good news is that—thanks to the dedicated work of former staff, volunteers and parents—a new setting called Phoenix Early Learners was opened within just six weeks. Will the Minister join me in thanking both Ofsted and the Charity Commission for fast-tracking the paperwork necessary, and in paying tribute to the staff, carers, volunteers and new trustees of the new early learning centre for all the great work they have done for the local community?
Olivia Bailey
Absolutely. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and all the parents and volunteers, Ofsted, and the early years professionals who have opened at impressive speed what sounds like a fantastic new provision for their community. I am pleased that the Government’s investment in childcare, which will total £9.5 billion this year, is helping ensure that more children have a fantastic early education and are supported to get ready for school.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I have talked to so many families who have had to watch their children fall further behind without the speech and language support they need. Alongside measures to address local authority deficits, we are providing £1.8 billion over the next three years for local areas to develop a new “experts at hand” offer, providing mainstream education settings with access to support from services including speech and language therapy.
Mrs Blundell
As the Minister knows, the SEND system is not working for children, families or local councils, and it has not been for some time. Despite the record of the Conservatives, we cannot allow children in need of speech and language therapy to lose out. Will the Minister assure me that when it comes to speech and language therapy, the new “experts at hand” service will be utilised effectively, so that each local authority will be able to provide all children with the support they need?
Georgia Gould
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend and I thank her for her advocacy on this important issue. We are rebuilding support across the community. Best Start hubs in every community will be supported by £200 million for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and we are investing £40 million to train up new specialist speech and language staff and educational psychologists to ensure that this support is available in every community.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On the subject of the provision of speech and language therapy for students with special educational needs, Westmorland and Furness council, in my area, was not one of the councils in financial difficulty—until last month, when the Government decided, for the crime of it being the most rural district in the country, to cut 31% of its budget over three years. What confidence can children with special educational needs and their parents in my community have that they are not going to be hit massively by these cuts, and what can the Minister do to put the cuts right?
Georgia Gould
We are providing dedicated support for speech and language therapists, educational psychologists and occupational therapists so that they are available to every primary and secondary school. In an average secondary school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we expect that that will amount to about 160 days of support a year.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
As my hon. Friend knows well, ensuring that all our children, in every corner of the country, learn to read quickly and to enjoy reading is one of this Labour Government’s key priorities. We are building strong foundations for every child in this National Year of Reading. Our best start in life strategy will expand support to improve phonics teaching, and through our regional improvement for standards and excellence English hubs, we are doubling the reach of our “reading ambition for all” programme, so that every child achieves and thrives.
Anneliese Midgley
As the Secretary of State said, 2026 is the National Year of Reading. This week, I am reading “Ghost Town” by Jeff Young. Reading changed my life, and in fact I read a book a week. In Knowsley, one in four children fail their key stage 1 phonics standards, so will the Minister tell me how the National Year of Reading will help kids in my constituency improve their reading and discover the same love of a good book that I have?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her enthusiasm, although she has put us all to shame with her revelation about her amazing reading habits. The National Year of Reading is all about encouraging children to discover the magic of a good book, which can ignite a lifelong love of reading. There will be exciting online and in-person events, with lots of resources, happening in schools and libraries in communities up and down the country, including in Knowsley. I am sure she will be encouraging her constituents, schools and local children to get involved.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Reading daily to young children is shown to have a direct correlation with better outcomes, qualifications and social mobility later in life. Just one book a day means a child will hear approximately 300,000 more words by the age of five than those who are not regularly read to. However, many parents are not aware of this, so as part of the National Year of Reading, have the Government given any consideration to repeating the success of “Clunk Click Every Trip” and running a national advertising campaign to promote directly to new parents the need and the value of reading to their children every day?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the evidence of reading with children, and how even reading for a short time at the end of the day can really set children up to succeed. Through the National Year of Reading, we will be supporting exactly those kinds of initiatives, and through our Best Start family hubs we will ensure that parents get high-quality advice about the best ways to support their children’s learning at home.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
When I visit primary and first schools, teachers tell me that when given a book, more and more children starting school are swiping it, rather than knowing how to turn the page. If the Secretary of State is serious about raising phonics standards at key stage 1, will she act now to empower parents and get screens out of classrooms, and back a ban on social media for under-16s to create the right habits early? Or will she continue to drag her feet, given that it has already taken six weeks to even launch a consultation that we all know the answer to?
Bridget Phillipson
We have launched that consultation. I am clear that phones have no place in our schools, and schools should enforce that policy and ensure that it is being followed.
The hon. Gentleman asked a serious and reasonable question about some of the challenges that we see when children arrive at primary school. That is why through our Best Start family hubs and the National Year of Reading, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that more parents and children are more supported. All of us as parents have to lead by example in that regard.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Every primary school in England will have a free breakfast club by the end of this Parliament, giving children a healthy breakfast and a great soft start to the day and improving attainment and attendance. Another 2,000 schools will open free breakfast clubs this year, including Pondhu primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Noah Law
I am delighted that Pondhu primary school in my constituency has been a trailblazer for not just our Government’s free breakfast clubs scheme, but investment in school nurseries, which has been a resounding success. What assessment has the Minister made of the positive impacts of our free breakfast clubs programme on children and their families?
Olivia Bailey
It was a pleasure to spend time with my hon. Friend in his constituency recently, where he and I both enjoyed a range of activities with the brilliant Pinky, including our enthusiastic attempts at axe chopping. I know that my hon. Friend has worked really hard to support and encourage schools in his constituency to participate in our school-based nurseries and breakfast clubs programmes, and I thank him for that. In the south-west, we have opened 30 school-based nurseries and nearly 100 breakfast clubs, supporting thousands of children in St Austell and beyond to get the very best start in life.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The roll-out of free breakfast clubs and the Government’s wider child poverty strategy are supposed to be driven by data, yet the Department does not even hold information on which councils in England have implemented auto-enrolment for free school meals. If the Government do not hold that basic data, which would show that Devon has done so and given £1.5 million in pupil premium but that Plymouth has delayed doing so until 2026-27, how can the Government be trusted to roll out further taxpayer-funded support—such as free breakfast clubs—and how can they prove the impact that that has on child poverty?
Olivia Bailey
All our programmes are evidence based. When it comes to breakfast clubs, we know the data shows us that they will drive up attainment and improve attendance for our schoolchildren.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I thank everyone for their support on the publication of the “Every Child Achieving and Thriving” White Paper and the special educational needs and disabilities reform consultation. From the reception that it has received, it is clear that we are on the right track to reform the system. I look forward to working with Members across the House, education and health staff, parents and children to build a future in which every child can achieve and thrive.
Last week, I was shocked by posts on TikTok encouraging violence by schoolchildren. TikTok must take urgent steps to address that and support firm action being taken by schools, local authorities and police to respond. From September, children will learn about staying safe from violence in the new curriculum.
James MacCleary
Plumpton college in my constituency is celebrating 100 years of land-based education. It has gone from 17 students in 1926 to a nationally recognised centre for agriculture, viticulture and environmental studies, with more than 1,200 full and part-time students today. Farming and land-based producers are vital to our food security, rural economy and environmental stewardship. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Plumpton college on its centenary and set out how the Government will ensure that specialist agricultural colleges have the funding, certainty and support that they need for the next century?
Bridget Phillipson
I join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the amazing success of his local college. We want to ensure that we provide the kinds of support that he talks about, and we are investing more in further education and post-16 education. If he would like to raise further areas, I will ensure that they are picked up by a Minister.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are committed to investing in schools. Our plans include an extra £1.6 billion going directly into schools and £1.8 billion going into the wider “experts at hand” service, on top of increasing funding to the schools core budget. In this Parliament, we will continue to grow our investment in both SEND and schools to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Under what circumstances does the Secretary of State think it is appropriate for a five-year-old to socially transition?
Bridget Phillipson
I genuinely expected better from the right hon. Lady. I encourage her to go away and look at the guidance we have published, which will be statutory in nature and makes the involvement of parents very clear. My view—which is also the view of Dr Hilary Cass—is that we should let children be children.
Laura Trott
The answer should have been “never”. That is what our guidance said, and that is what the Government’s guidance should have said.
In our universities, gender-critical feminists have been kicked off campus, while today the ayatollah is being celebrated as a martyr at University College London. This is completely unacceptable, so what is the Secretary of State doing to crack down on this two-tier system, or is she going to sit on her hands while an enemy of Britain is celebrated?
Bridget Phillipson
No, absolutely not. While I am clear that universities should be places of open discussion and dialogue, where views should be challenged and questioned—that is an important principle that this party has long supported—there can of course be no place for hate speech or intimidation on campus. Anyone involved in that kind of activity should face consequences, but that is entirely different from the wider question that the right hon. Lady started with, which is about the wellbeing of children. We all have a responsibility to approach this issue sensibly and do what is right by children. She obviously has not read the guidance properly.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has been working closely with me on this issue. The Department sets clear financial management expectations for trusts through funding agreements in the academy trust handbook, and we are bringing in inspections of multi-academy trusts to ensure good governance and financial management.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State has quite rightly said that someone’s background should be no barrier to success, so if she does not propose to increase the pupil premium budget, will she confirm how many children will lose out when she seeks to rebalance it, and will she guarantee that the money will always follow the individual child, not where they live?
Bridget Phillipson
As the hon. Lady knows, we intend to consult on getting the best outcomes for children through the use of the money we are targeting at disadvantage. Free school meals are a rather blunt way of doing that, and we are keen to explore ways of ensuring that all children from less well-off backgrounds, including pupil premium children, get the very best from their education. However, it is a consultation, and I would be more than willing to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent, whose courage, commitment and care for others in the most impossible circumstances is truly inspiring. In the schools White Paper, we committed to consulting on changes to the school admissions code to promote fairness for all families. As part of that work, we will be looking at how to ensure that cases such as this are better supported through admissions policy in the future and, in the meantime, that schools and admissions authorities make use of the social and medical criteria.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, we intend to do that shortly. To be clear, universities should be places of open discussion, where academics can operate freely and everyone is exposed to views that they may sometimes find challenging and with which they may disagree. We have commenced many of the provisions within the Act that are upholding and safeguarding free speech and academic freedom in our universities.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for a technical excellence college in his constituency. We have launched the applications for 19 of those. They get to the core of what this Labour Government are about, which is creating opportunities in every corner of this country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
We were elected on a manifesto to deliver a limit on the number of branded items to cut the cost of school uniform. Unfortunately, some of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could have unintended consequences that would not tackle the problem we are facing, which is that children should be smart when they go to school, but it should not cost their parents the earth.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Literacy levels among Southampton’s children remain a challenge, and I commend the work of so many teachers in attempting to close that gap. Can the Minister say how schools in my constituency can best engage with the National Year of Reading? Will she join me in welcoming plans for a Southampton literary festival to inspire a lifelong love of reading in every child in Southampton?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I welcome and celebrate the launch of the Southampton literary festival by Bitterne Park school, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his advocacy in his constituency. The National Year of Reading is packed full of exciting events for all to participate in, and I encourage Members to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The children of Banks Lane junior school recently visited the parliamentary education establishment, and kindly invited me along. They were fizzing with enthusiasm and excitement for their learning. We know that attitudes to money are embedded at a really young age, so it is welcome that financial education is included in the curriculum and assessment review. We also know that 80% of teachers are reporting heavy workloads. What additional funding and training is coming in to ensure that children get what they need?
Georgia Gould
Children and young people often say to me that financial education is the big change they want to see in the curriculum. We are pleased that we are making that change as part of the curriculum and assessment review and including financial education at primary and secondary level. We are developing a new digital national curriculum to make things easier for teachers, and we are increasing funding for schools to implement these wider changes.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Scottish colleges are struggling to cope with huge cuts to staff and funding, including West College Scotland in my constituency. The Scottish National party has cut funding by 20% in five years. What can the Minister do, working with other Departments such as Defence, to ensure that Scottish colleges become engines of growth and opportunity again, particularly for the young people of West Dunbartonshire?
Josh MacAlister
The SNP’s track record on education is so poor they needed to pull out of the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—league tables because Scotland was plummeting so low. There is a chance to fix that in the elections later on this year. Skills policy is devolved, but as part of our defence boost we are seeing fantastic opportunities to bring colleges in Scotland along on that journey.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise the promotion of British heritage in schools? If so, will she bring in a policy to ensure that every school flies the Union Jack outside its premises, and that a different pupil gets the chance to raise the national flag every morning?
Georgia Gould
We already teach British values, and we are proud to teach our British heritage and our past to set us up for the future.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Given that this is Colleges Week, may I take the opportunity to mention Stafford college, which is widely accepted to be the best college in the country? It already has 1,150 students on manufacturing courses, and works with 250 local employers in the sector. Does the Minister agree that if Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group were made an advanced manufacturing technical excellence college, it could build on its excellent relationship with manufacturers locally?
Josh MacAlister
I gladly congratulate Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group on its recent Ofsted rating, which is fantastic, and I note my hon. Friend’s support for its application to become a wave 2 technical excellence college. The applications closed on 16 February, and we expect to make and announce a decision next month.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Alderley Edge school for girls, in my constituency, has just announced its closure, blaming increased costs, such as national insurance costs, and, most significantly, VAT on school fees. Given that the Secretary of State is responsible for its closure, what will she do to help minimise the disruption to pupils who are now being forced to change school against their wishes, and to look for places in schools in the Cheshire East area that either no longer exist or are full?
Olivia Bailey
I am sorry to hear about the closure of the school in the right hon. Lady’s constituency, but closures of private schools have been in line with historical trends. All pupils are entitled to a state school place, and the right hon. Lady should contact the local authority to discuss this further.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Education Secretary’s commitment to inclusion, but many children in York are not in school because of the disciplinary processes run by multi-academy trusts and the culture that ensues. What will she do to ensure that leaders in such trusts are held to account for that?
Georgia Gould
We think it is absolutely essential for all children to have access to an inclusive education. That is why Ofsted is now inspecting inclusion in all schools. As part of the schools White Paper and the special educational needs and disabilities consultation, we have set out new guidance on reasonable adjustments to support schools with that, and we will inspect multi-academy trusts on their decision-making.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Disgracefully, a pro-ayatollah students’ society plans to host a commemorative event on the campus of University College London in the name of “the fallen”—in other words, in support of those who backed the brutal regime of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is utterly wrong that taxpayer-funded university resources are being used to propagate the murderous ideology of the Tehran regime, which has attacked UK bases, and with which we are effectively at war?
Bridget Phillipson
We expect to see the strongest possible action where hate speech or illegal activity takes place, whether on a campus or anywhere else, and I would expect any suggestions of that kind of activity to be fully investigated by those responsible for enforcing the law.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As this is Colleges Week, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the incredible college staff in Hartlepool and across the country for the work that they do? Does she agree that we must end the misguided prejudice that the academic route is always best, and champion vocational qualifications, which will give us the workforce we need to rebuild our country?
Bridget Phillipson
I do indeed pay tribute to the amazing people who work in our colleges and in further education, including in Hartlepool college of further education, and I look forward to being in Hartlepool very soon with my hon. Friend to observe that work at first hand.
Middle East
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.
This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?
Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.
We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.
The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.
Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”
while forcing us
“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.
Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.
What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.
On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.
I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member and assure her that we have learned the lessons of Iraq. That is why I have been so clear that there must be a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. In relation to our nationals, I think all our constituents would expect our Government to take action to protect British nationals. We have 300,000 British nationals in the region, and they are at risk. We have already seen strikes on hotels where our nationals have been staying, and on airports. We have seen strikes near military bases, within hundreds of yards of our personnel. It is our duty to take the action we can take, and will take, to protect them.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?
The Prime Minister
We obviously co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners. We were dealing with a specific request to take action, and it was important that we applied the principle, which actually has been applied by successive Governments, to ask and get legal advice on the question: is there a lawful basis for what is proposed, and does it have a viable, thought-through plan? [Interruption.] It is not a legal question; it is about making sure, before we ask our military personnel to engage in action that risks their lives, that that would be lawful. That is the duty of the Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have taken exactly the same approach. I will, of course, read the shadow Attorney General’s advice, but I am very clear in the advice that I received. I will not commit our military personnel to unlaw action. That is not what they deserve or would expect; they are entitled to better than that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump.
When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to urge caution—history teaches us that. This is why it is important that there is not only a lawful basis but a viable and thought-through plan. Obviously, we have had discussions at all levels with the US in relation to that. In relation to the decision I took yesterday, I am very clear what the lawful basis is and what the plan in relation to protection of our nationals is. On the question he raises about a vote, that is of course a vote on offensive action, deploying our troops or military, and that is not this situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2003 this House voted to support George Bush’s war in Iraq, and that 10 years later we voted not to support Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria. I believed, and still believe, that on both occasions we made the wrong decision, but it was of critical importance for the political and even the social cohesion of this country that those decisions should be made in this Chamber. The people of the United Kingdom will not support an intervention that does not have a clear objective and a clear plan for the post-conflict period. Will the Prime Minister be guided by these principles, and will he ensure that this House is given its place in whatever is handed to us in the weeks and months to come?
The Prime Minister
Of course this House must hold accountability and debate this issue. In relation to the vote, there is no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action; only offensive action. And nor could there be: realistically, defensive action has to be taken at very swift notice. On Saturday morning, I had to take the decision to deploy our pilots to the sky in order to defend our UK nationals. There is no way we could have waited for a debate or vote in the House. Equally, last night I had to take a decision about the use of bases, and it was important that I did so as a matter of some urgency. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a full debate in the House, but the vote in the House is in relation to deployment of military personnel for offensive action, and that is something I have advocated.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
The Prime Minister
Can I be absolutely clear about the basis upon which the request was acceded to yesterday? It was the collective self-defence of our allies and the protection of British nationals. That remains the case. If it changes, I will of course make a different decision and inform the House. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that that is, and will remain, the basis of the action we have taken.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are working at speed on that. It is an important point, and it is important that we do so. I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out our armed forces. It was this Government that increased defence spending over the course of this Parliament.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Over the weekend, I passed through Dubai airport, along with thousands of other people and many of my own constituents, as it turns out, and boarded a flight home. Shortly after leaving, we heard the news that this attack had happened, and my immediate thoughts went to the people who were still in the airport, who were then grounded and stuck there, not knowing where to turn or what was going to happen. Rather than the blatant aggression and angry sneers that we see from some of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this situation is calmness and a clear and strategic plan? That is what our constituents want.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that is what our constituents do want. Can I also say how concerned I think we all are across the House at the attacks on hotels and airports in particular? These are hotels that British nationals and others are using and airports, of course, that civilians are using. This is the extent of the strikes by Iran and the reckless disregard for civilian life that come with the targets it is working through.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?
The Prime Minister
The immediate plan is obviously to take the necessary measures to protect our nationals. Look, I do not think anybody mourns the death of the supreme leader. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome. Whatever the conflict going on, in the end it will have to end in a negotiated outcome, and that has been the consistent position of both parties for a considerable period of time.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
So far we have rightly focused on defending and protecting British citizens in the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm, though, that he believes that the future of the Iranian Government is a matter for the Iranian people and no one else? Can we focus our diplomatic efforts as soon as possible on de-escalation and peace, including identifying allies in a coalition of the willing to bring this to an end?
The Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, and we must absolutely establish that as a founding principle, and that it is our duty to de-escalate in the region and globally. Of course, it is important that we are acting with our allies, and that is why I talked to both the Germans and the French over the course of the weekend on a number of occasions.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon.
Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.
The Prime Minister
Nobody is making the comparison with Iraq; there is a question of drawing lessons from Iraq. The lesson I draw is that there must be a lawful basis for the action we take, and there must be a viable plan. On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about operational matters, I will not go into that from the Dispatch Box.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Foreign Secretary, we have at all levels—including the Foreign Secretary—been talking intensively to our allies over the past few days. They have been extremely grateful for what we have done and the way in which we have engaged. I have spoken personally to all the leaders in the region, so I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making about our not being involved—they are very grateful for the way we have been involved. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have worked around the clock over the past few days to ensure that all the necessary conversations are had, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect and as he probably knows has been happening.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for setting out clearly the reasons Britain did not join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. I also thank him for ensuring the defence of Britain’s Gulf partners and for protecting the 300,000 Britons in the region. I agree with him that diplomacy and a negotiated settlement are the best path to peace. Will he outline the role that Britain is playing to ensure that the Iranian people are listened to and have peace and security ahead, not more war and chaos, not another murderous Iranian regime, and not another US-imposed regime change?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?
The Prime Minister
We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the hon. Lady’s constituents, may I ask her to urge them, if they have not already done so, to register their presence as quickly as possible so that we can give them the necessary advice, because this is about how we get people out in the coming days? There are obviously wider questions in the region, but it is very important that we take the necessary measures in the coming days.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?
The Prime Minister
I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?
The Prime Minister
The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The truth is that this dreadful Iranian regime has been a permanent threat to British interests and British citizens both domestically and abroad, attacking us and spreading its extremist ideology. Surely the Prime Minister understands that actually the United States and Israel have done the west a huge, huge favour in degrading the military capability of this terrible regime. Does he not understand that, after 10 years of negotiations that have failed, the west was left with no alternative? Does he understand also that in refusing to support the US, he has humiliated us on the international stage?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regime is abhorrent, for all the reasons that I have already set out, but I think he is saying that because of that, it is perfectly right for a British Prime Minister to deploy and take action that would not be lawful. I simply and fundamentally disagree: I think it is a very important principle, when talking about our personnel, that we ensure that what we are asking them to do—and they are being asked to put their lives at risk—is lawful. I believe in that fundamentally; I am surprised if he does not.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:
“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?
The Prime Minister
I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to be clear that UK military action has to be in line with international law, and that we were not involved in the offensive action of Israel and the US. He is also right to act to protect British lives and British interests in the face of Iranian attacks. In rightly drawing lessons from Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that a failed state in Iran is not in the interests of the UK, nor in the interests of the wider middle east?
The Prime Minister
We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?
The Prime Minister
I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless attacks have fuelled further regional instability, putting British people at risk along with our allies across the region. The attacks have naturally caused concern about what they mean for our own national security due to rising oil prices and the cost of living. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK needs to act decisively in our own national interest, including on how this conflict could impact every household in our country?
The Prime Minister
We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?
The Prime Minister
We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I think the diffidence that we have heard towards international law this afternoon is as unwise as, perhaps, it is unsurprising. For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister confirm what would have needed to have been true for it to be legal for him to have joined the offensive strikes last week? Surely that would have required an imminent threat to our national security, which was simply not present when the decision to strike was taken.
The Prime Minister
I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.
The Prime Minister
There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It has been heartening to see the scenes of jubilation from Iranians, from Syrians and from British Iranians in this country at the death of the evil ayatollah. They hope that it will enable them ultimately to finally gain their freedom from this horrific regime. As the situation evolves, may I ask the Prime Minister to keep them in his mind’s eye? Will he engage and meet with some of the Iranian activists who reside in the UK? In addition, if it does look as if the regime is going to fall, can officials think about the ways in which we can support the Iranian people to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure, and to provide aid, just as we are currently doing in Syria?
The Prime Minister
We must be absolutely clear that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time, including through the terrible actions that were taken in January this year.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In his statement, the Prime Minister explained his disagreement with the US President about UK participation in the initial strikes, and I commend that decision. When the UK refused to participate in US interventions in Vietnam and Grenada, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher kept their disagreements private, but that is difficult to do with Trump. Crucially, though, in the cases of Vietnam and Grenada, the UK stayed out. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the case of Iran, the UK is not going to get dragged into this war on the basis of collective self-defence in support of allies in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I hope I have set out my position clearly, and the reasons behind my decision. That is the basis upon which we made the decision last night; we will keep it under review, and if it changes, I will come back to the House.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will apply the same principles of whether there is a lawful basis and a viable case to the decisions that we take.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.
West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?
The Prime Minister
I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green party—although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction. It is important that we all set our face against antisemitism. I have to say that the Green party’s argument that now is the time to get out of NATO and negotiate with Putin over our nuclear weapons is also contrary to the British national interest.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents, and I understand just how worried they will be, as will all our constituents who are in the area. That is why it is important that we take measures in the region, as we are doing, to try to take the missiles out of the air. That is the reason we have given permission to the US to use the bases for the limited and specific purposes I have set out.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Last Friday, the talks in Geneva were apparently making good progress and there was hope that there would be some kind of agreement between the United States and Iran. Some 12 hours later, President Trump ordered attacks on Iran, the first victims of which were a group of schoolchildren attending school in the morning. They in no way can be held responsible for anything in Iran, whether human rights abuses or anything else.
In the Prime Minister’s statement, it is unclear to me under which circumstances US forces will be allowed to use RAF bases. Can they use bases in this country to attack Iran? Can they use RAF Akrotiri for that? Are we—this country—sharing information with the US to further its war aims against Iran? Could we not instead adopt a stance of trying to bring about an immediate ceasefire to prevent further dreadful loss of life across every country in the whole region and the danger of this escalating into a semi-global conflict?
The Prime Minister
The uses of the bases are for the collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British nationals—something I am sure the right hon. Member would agree with—and specifically to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes that are currently going into allied countries and putting our nationals at risk. Let me be clear that we are not using Cyprus for this purpose.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership. My thoughts are with serving personnel in the region. May I also mention our armed forces families in Cyprus, some of whom are my constituents? Clear communications from the Ministry of Defence will be crucial in reassuring these families, who are feeling worried and uncertain at this time. In light of the growing threat, may I ask the Prime Minister about the UK’s preparedness commitment under NATO article 3? Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to preparedness, with every Minister in every Department clear on their role in meeting our obligations to ensure that the UK can face the pressures of this increasingly unstable world?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on compliance with the law. What discussions have the Government held with the Government of Qatar and other regional allies about co-operation to ensure the safety, security and support of British nationals? What joint measures have been agreed to assist British nationals in the region?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to all the leaders across the region in person, on the telephone, over the weekend, and that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have been liaising very closely to ensure that we can take the best, swiftest and most effective action to protect our nationals.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake.
One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why I have proceeded on the basis that there must be a lawful case for what is done and a viable plan. For us, the immediate vision that is important is ensuring that we do what we can to protect our citizens and de-escalate the situation so that we can get to a negotiated outcome.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we have been having discussions throughout the weekend with counterparts in the region to that end, about how we rise to the challenge that is currently before us, what action we can take to protect our nationals and our allies across the region, and how we can de-escalate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?
The Prime Minister
I clearly set out the two decisions that I made over the weekend, including the decision on Saturday to start taking defensive action with our pilots in the region, and the decision last night to permit the US to use our bases for collective self-defence in order to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes in the first place.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
May I put on record my admiration for the skill and the bravery of our armed forces? We owe them a debt of gratitude now more than ever as they see action.
The Prime Minister was right to say that we must learn the lessons from Iraq, and all the other conflicts in which there has not been a viable end plan. Given that, can he reassure me that the decision to allow the United States to launch operations from our bases will be kept under constant review, so that the UK’s presence in this conflict remains a defensive one?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The decision will be kept under review, and I will update the House accordingly.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to deal with the drones and are working with our Ukrainian colleagues, who have been facing this for four years. We have been working with them on that, and we are working with them to help to protect allies who are under attack in the region.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Overnight, my constituents have lost the benefit—promised to them only last week—of savings on energy prices through the attacks on refineries across Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices have soared, and gas prices in Europe have surged by upwards of 52% in the last few hours. The longer this carries on, it risks escalation across the middle east. Closer to home, it impacts on the day-to-day lives of the British people through increased energy costs. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of energy prices to British households, and what efforts is the Prime Minister making to ensure that we can de-escalate sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. We are carefully monitoring that, as she would expect, and we are doing all that we can with our allies to de-escalate the situation.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As a veteran, I agree with the Prime Minister that the safety of our armed forces and of British citizens should come first in any decision made in the future. Given the rapidly evolving situation, will the Ministry of Defence now expedite the promised defence investment plan, so that our industry can get on and make the capabilities that this country needs?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are getting on with that as quickly as we can.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
We should all welcome the end of the Iranian regime—if it is the end of the regime. Those of us who were in this House for the decision on Iraq needed no convincing that Saddam’s was an evil regime. What we needed convincing on was that the attack was permissible in international law and that there was clarity about the exit strategy; it had neither of those, and nor does the US attack on Iran. The Prime Minister’s broadcast justification of the use of our bases spoke of enabling a defensive strike. Words have meaning: a “defensive strike” is a contradiction in terms. The usual phrase is “pre-emptive strike”, and in any language, a pre-emptive strike is an attack.
The Prime Minister
The use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out Iran’s ability to launch the attacks in the first place. I think that is relatively clear.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?
The Prime Minister
I will not get into hypotheticals, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Government were in office and we were in opposition, we supported that action, as was the case when we were in government and the Conservatives were in opposition. He can see what the consistent practice is there.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The brutality of the Iranian regime is unquestionable, but does the Prime Minister agree with many of our constituents still in the region, who will be deeply concerned at the indication from the United States today that it will increase its airstrikes on Iran? Can he assure us that he will redouble his efforts to take forward the strategy, which he has rightly set out today, of de-escalation and action that is in accordance with international law?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
The deal secures the islands so that they can be used for the important purposes that they are used for. It was vital that we got the deal; otherwise, we would not be able to carry out the operations in the same way.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
This conflict has already cost lives. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and hundreds of thousands of UK nationals are stranded in the region. If it continues for weeks, that will only make it more difficult to evacuate our nationals, and it will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and damage to the world economy. Can the Prime Minister say more about what he will do in the coming days to work with our allies in the EU and the middle east to try to bring an end to this conflict, and to return to diplomatic negotiations, so that we can secure peace and security and protect civilian lives?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are talking to our allies in the region and to allies in Europe—we talked to France and Germany, in particular, over the weekend—to be clear about the principles we are applying, and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?
The Prime Minister
The question I was asked and I was answering was: what would be the lawful basis for anything the United Kingdom would do? That is the question that I considered over the weekend, and that is what guided me in the two decisions that I had to make about the United Kingdom.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I had 40 constituents with me this morning, and they were very concerned about the creation of a regional vacuum, specifically in places like Lebanon and Yemen. What steps is the UK taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in the countries that will be most exposed if the Iranian regime changes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is very important that we take those measures in the countries that are most exposed, and we are talking to our allies about how we can do that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising the matter of the west bank; it is a cause of great concern, which is only intensified by actions in recent days, and I am not surprised that they have caused deep concern in the west bank. As far as the UK is concerned, I have clearly set out what our strategy is, and the basis for the actions that we are taking.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Among the reasons for pushing ahead with renewables is that they give us energy security and independence, which is hugely important at a time like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I please urge Members to make their questions significantly shorter? There is still a huge number of Members seeking to catch my eye. I know we are going to have an exemplary performance from Mark Pritchard, with a very short question, please.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.
The Prime Minister
I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?
The Prime Minister
No. Our decisions were made to protect British citizens and British nationals, and I stand by those decisions.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Iranian regime is a murderous regime. It is an exporter of terrorism, and a threat to regional and national security, and its removal is good for British security and good for the Iranian people. However, what comes next is even more important than what has happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants a “viable, thought-through plan”. Does he think that President Trump has a viable, thought-through plan for what comes next?
The Prime Minister
We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?
The Prime Minister
We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
No one should shed a tear for the Iranian leadership; this was a brutal and oppressive regime. However, there are other brutal and repressive regimes in the world. A brutal and oppressive regime is never, in and of itself, a reason to attack a country. Can the Prime Minister please assure me that any involvement of British troops or assets in this conflict will be purely defensive?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I will act. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Any action will have to have a lawful basis, and a viable case for it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?
The Prime Minister
We are taking a number of measures to deal with Iranian threats, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister claims that lessons have been learned from Iraq, and I really hope that is true. Netanyahu and Trump instigated an illegal act of aggression, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, including UK nationals and our military. Does the Prime Minister agree that diplomacy and de-escalation are needed if we are not to bring Britain into a reckless and catastrophic war, and can he provide details about this “viable, thought-through plan” to repatriate our nationals?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to apply the principles that I have set out, and will work to de-escalate across the region.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?
The Prime Minister
My point is simply that in the end, there will ultimately have to be a negotiated outcome when it comes to nuclear weapons. At what point that happens is obviously unclear, particularly after the past few days. That is why it has for years been the consistent policy of both our parties that this should be a negotiated outcome. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy until Friday of last week.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Door-knocking in Ealing yesterday, I met a student whose parents fled Iran in 1979, and who told me how overjoyed they are to get rid of this despotic, tyrannical regime. Yet the methods used surely risk undermining the rules-based order. A girls’ school was hit, with 150 kids killed; we appear to have normalised the bombing of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and universities in Gaza by one of the two instigators of this action. What does the PM see as the end game of this war, and how will he stop Operation Fury turning into Operation Futility?
The Prime Minister
I have clearly set out the basis for the decisions I have taken, and my view that we should all do all we can to de-escalate the situation.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured statement and restraint. The illegal action by Israel and the USA over the weekend, taking out admittedly a very repressive and brutal regime leader, has left the region and the world in turmoil, which is creating real fear, especially for our children. In fact, my 14-year-old asked me over the weekend, “Dad, are we all going to be okay?” I ask the Prime Minister this, as a father: what assurance he can give my son, and all the children in this country and the middle east, that he will do everything in his power to prevent the outbreak of world war three, which Donald Trump and Netanyahu are driving us towards?
The Prime Minister
The protection and security of British nationals is my foremost duty. I take it very seriously—that is why I took the decisions that I did over the weekend—and will continue to do so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many people in my constituency, I said prayers over the weekend while watching the events unfold. It is clear that the region is in a perilous state, and we need to de-escalate, follow the rule of law and get peace back on the table.
I have a related question on the region for the Prime Minister. As he will know, many in the House were passionate about ensuring a ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring that aid and humanity got in. We know that there have been closures of ways into the west bank and Gaza over the weekend. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give us that while we look towards Iran, we will not lose sight of the humanitarian need in Gaza and on the west bank?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The ceasefire in Gaza is welcome but fragile, and not enough aid was getting in even under the circumstances before this weekend. We are working with others to ensure that we can alleviate the situation as quickly as possible.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?
The Prime Minister
This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured response so far. I have spoken to former constituents and friends who are British expats in the UAE. While they feel confident that the local Government there are doing all that they can to protect them, for clarity, will they too be considered for evacuation by the FCDO should it become necessary?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies to ensure that all those who need our help get our help and are safely and swiftly removed from a region that is dangerous for them.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to disclose the full advice. International law does not just have an important role to play; it is vital if we are taking action that involves our personnel. That is why I took advice, and I have published the summary of that advice. I said that I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. if he is setting out a lawful basis, I would be very interested to read it.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his clarity on our adherence to international law. From Somalia to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, history shows us that military interventions do not always lead to peaceful political transitions and often have wider regional and global repercussions. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that his focus will be on encouraging a peaceful transition for the people of Iran and de-escalating the situation regionally and globally?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also underscore her point that the future of Iran must be for the people of Iran, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree with the way that he puts it. It is important that we acknowledge that the Iranian people have been brutally repressed for so many years.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
May I express my support for the Government’s handling of the events this weekend? I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s clarity today that international law is paramount and that priority is being given to the safety of UK citizens. Does he agree with me, however, that this will end only when Iran, the US and allies get around the table and talk about nuclear de-escalation, and when Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions? Will the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with allies to ensure that happens?
The Prime Minister
We are having conversations with allies about de-escalating the situation and about how we get back to negotiation. In the end, at whatever stage it is, that will have to be part of the process.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear that the action that we have authorised from our bases is to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and measured approach and for his reassurance today. As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the mum of a serving personnel member currently deployed overseas, my first thought is always for the men and women we ask to stand in harm’s way. The Iranian regime’s reckless attacks are not abstract; they are direct threats to British service personnel and British citizens in the region. Will the Prime Minister, first, confirm that every measure is being taken to protect constituents on the ground? Secondly, will he assure the House that when we pursue de-escalation and democracy, operational decisions will be grounded firmly in one overriding principle: the safety of our British servicemen and women?
The Prime Minister
I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?
The Prime Minister
To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that the actions we are taking are to protect British nationals, and we are working with others to de-escalate the situation.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?
The Prime Minister
I will be absolutely clear again, because it really matters, that the US is not using Cyprus; it is our base. I will not go into operational details, but as the hon. Member would expect we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that Cyprus and the base are safe. I spoke to the President yesterday, and I hope to speak to him again later this afternoon.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Given the comments yesterday from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the IRGC is adopting a decentralised mosaic defence to fragment command and control structures and create even more unpredictable flashpoints, will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what steps he is taking with allies, including partners in the region, to mitigate such developments that threaten to escalate and prolong the conflict?
The Prime Minister
We have already put extensive sanctions in place, and we keep the situation under constant review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks.
Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Member, and through him everybody in Cyprus, that protective measures are in place. His description was not right, and it is not helpful to those living in Cyprus to cast it in those terms. [Interruption.] It really is not. As he would expect, extensive measures are in place—both US measures and UK measures—for the defence of Cyprus and the airbase there. It is very important that I make that absolutely clear.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?
The Prime Minister
The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?
The Prime Minister
I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
People in Northern Ireland are entitled to be British, Irish or both. As such, many have travelled to the middle east on an Irish passport. We know that the FCDO has asked people to register. However, those Northern Irish citizens who have an Irish passport and are also UK nationals cannot register. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will work to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland will not be left behind?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will get to the bottom of it and make sure that the concern she has raised is properly, fully and swiftly addressed.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?
The Prime Minister
It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave service personnel, who every day work incredibly hard to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to him for his leadership on this matter. A number of people from my constituency of Harlow are trapped in Bahrain and Dubai, including one who is pregnant. What advice can the Prime Minister give to my constituents who are worried about their safety?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Member that we are taking measures with our allies to safeguard the supply and to do all we can to ensure that we have the energy we need where we need it.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
While the ayatollah has been toppled, the IRGC remains intact, and it is indeed the head of the snake as the sponsor of global terrorism. Despite many urgings, the previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the IRGC. The Prime Minister’s Government have made the promise to do so. Nothing has happened yet—if not now, when?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Member will know from her time in office that this is kept under review, but we have put extensive sanctions in place, as the previous Government did.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that the BBC reports and broadcasts in the way that it does, and we support it in doing so.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A 23-year-old Eastbourne lad, Cameron, is currently lying stranded in a Dubai hospital bed after falling very ill during a minutes-long stopover in Dubai over the weekend. During this window, the airspace closed. Cameron’s hospital bills are £1,000 a day, which he is being forced to pay up front despite having insurance. Cameron, who is watching, urgently needs to know the following. First, when will the Prime Minister outline his repatriation plan, if there will be one? Secondly, will he prioritise British nationals who are clinically vulnerable for repatriation, if it is medically safe? Thirdly, will the appropriate Minister meet me and Cameron’s family to ensure that he gets the treatment he needs before money runs out and to make sure that we get Cameron back to Eastbourne safe?
The Prime Minister
Cameron and his family and loved ones must be extremely worried. If the hon. Member would pass me the full details of that particular case, I will make sure that we do whatever we can to assist Cameron and his family.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?
The Prime Minister
We started taking action on Saturday morning, with our pilots in the sky across the region, and they have been working ever since. We added to that yesterday afternoon by acceding to the request of the Americans to use our bases for the attacks on Iran’s capability to launch strikes in the first place.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?
The Prime Minister
The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?
The Prime Minister
We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
This conflict has grounded travellers at Doha, including a constituent who has three young children waiting at home. Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with Qatari leaders, can he explain how evacuations will be prioritised, and what support is being provided on the ground to those who were expecting simply to pass through?
The Prime Minister
May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?
The Prime Minister
It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by an Iranian ballistic missile in Iraq in 2020. When I arrived as a soldier three months later, our base came under attack from Iranian proxy militias eight times. The Iranian regime has gunned down tens of thousands of protesters in recent weeks. Morality is complex. I entirely support the Prime Minister’s view on the need for a negotiated settlement, given, sadly, the risks of regime change, but does he agree that any negotiated settlement needs to include protections against reprisals for protesters?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. It is really important that we approach this with clear principles about what we are trying to achieve and having learnt the lessons of history in terms of what happens after such conflicts.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?
The Prime Minister
We talk to our allies all the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows and would expect, and we talked to them extensively over the weekend in response to the situation as it developed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can as quickly as we can. I will pick up the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised specifically, and will he please reassure his constituents that, he having raised it with me, I will do whatever I can to respond very quickly?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
US congressional staff were told on Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike American forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first. In other words, there was no intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Yet we have already seen pre-emptive strikes attacking a girls’ school, killing over 100 children. This has been condemned by UNESCO as a grave violation of humanitarian law, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to mention it. Continuing such actions is unlawful, and allowing them to take place from UK bases is unlawful, so I ask the Prime Minister: is the genocide of the Palestinian people not enough for this Labour Government? Is he proud to be another Labour Prime Minister obediently following Washington into yet another illegal war in the middle east, making us all less safe? Finally, how much does he enjoy being Donald Trump’s poodle?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the decisions I made over the weekend and the reasons for them. My first duty is to protect British nationals; it is the most important duty that I have, and I will continue to discharge it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime have denied religious minorities their freedom of religious belief for years—Christians, Sunnis, Shia’s and Baha’is. They killed 30,000 protesters in January 2026. Girls are abused and victimised regularly. Today the ayatollah is deservedly dead and burns in hell, and I for one put a shovel of coals on his head and hope his damnation will be a long one. The IRGC and the Basij paramilitary groups have the guns while the protesters have none, so what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the USA and Israel to destroy the murderous IRGC? And what discussions has he had with Madam Rajavi and the national Iranian Government in exile on their 10-point plan for a solution and a transparent way forward?
The Prime Minister
There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?
The Prime Minister
We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.
Point of Order
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) incorrectly attacked the reputation of Mothin Ali, deputy leader of the Green party, by saying that he had protested in support of the ayatollah. He certainly did not. Mothin Ali attended a CND and Stop the War anti-war protest, in support of his principles of being anti-war, pro-democracy and pro-diplomacy. What advice can you give me about correcting the record regarding this serious false accusation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I assume that she also informed the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) of her intention to refer to him.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Member will know, Members themselves are responsible for the accuracy of their words in the Chamber. If a correction is needed, I am sure that one will be forthcoming. For now, she has placed her own view on the record.
Bill Presented
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 410 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is a lot of interest from Members across the House in this Bill, and that is no surprise, because we are all proud of our British democracy. Our democracy is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. The long history of this House has been punctuated by reforms that have strengthened it. It is precisely because of that evolution of our elections and Parliament that in a world where too many beacons of democracy have dimmed, ours still shines brightly.
As parliamentarians, we are more than caretakers of democracy; we are here to actively advance it and to protect it from threats. When hostile actors at home and abroad seek to sow division, using every means possible to undermine our elections, trying to destabilise the very foundations of our freedom and our democratic institutions, then we must act. That is why we are debating the Representation of the People Bill: to secure our elections against those who threaten them; to protect those who participate; to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters; and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.
At the 2024 general election, Labour’s election manifesto committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. We campaigned on encouraging participation in our democracy, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and improving voter registration, while fulfilling our pledge to strengthen protections against foreign interference, as well as to introduce rules around donations.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I have come straight to Parliament from Kingsbury school in my constituency, where the year 11 pupils were saying how much they are looking forward to being given the right to vote, so may I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that forward in the Bill?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.
We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?
Steve Reed
We are tightening the rules on donations so that the system can be much more robust and has much greater integrity than is currently the case.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), published our strategy for modern and secure elections in July 2025. The strategy promised to restore faith in our democracy. It set out new tasks of future-proofing our democracy, keeping our elections safe, upholding our values and protecting against foreign interference. We promised to expand the democratic rights of young people and set a path towards automated voter registration.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Secretary of State recognise that when young carers and young adult carers get to the age of 16, they have potentially already been caring for a loved one for over a decade? They are emotionally intelligent and educated enough, and have enough life experience, to deserve the democratic right to vote.
Steve Reed
That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.
We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?
Steve Reed
Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?
Steve Reed
As always, my right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.
The reason the Bill extends the vote to younger people, aged 16 and 17 years old, is simple: it is because young people are our nation’s future. The voting age has stood at 18 since it was lowered from 21 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. More recently, the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 for Senedd elections in 2020 and for local elections in Wales in 2021. The Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and subsequently for all devolved elections in Scotland. The change in the Bill will bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the United Kingdom.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the same arguments that were made over 100 years ago about women not being fit enough to vote are now being repeated for 16-year-olds? The success that ultimately came from including women in the franchise should give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.
Steve Reed
I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.
Steve Reed
To correct the hon. Gentleman, it is not me, but the House, that would be allowing 16-year-olds to vote. If people can serve in the armed forces, they should have the right to help to choose their own country’s Government, who decide on matters of war and peace. We have just heard from the Prime Minister what an outstanding job our armed forces are doing.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will remember that when we both served on Lambeth council, I had the absolute honour of introducing the youth mayor elections. Up and down the country, there are 16-year-olds in public office, including many young people allocating funds in some cases in excess of £25,000 to other community groups. Young people have the capacity and knowledge, and they are willing to serve if we give them the opportunity. Does he agree?
Steve Reed
I always agree with my hon. Friend, and not just because we are friends. I remember her introducing the youth mayor scheme in Lambeth; it was a huge success and showed how keen young people were to be involved in decisions that affect them, as well as their ability to contribute to discussions and debates in a very meaningful way.
Daniel Zeichner
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend will hear about that further along in my speech.
I need to make progress, or you will be angry with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are looking at automated voter registration so that about 7 million or 8 million people in this country who are entitled to vote but do not have the vote can do so. We need to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to the vote can exercise it.
The Bill allows prospective voters to register in preparation before they turn 16. As we extend the franchise in this way, we will focus on data protection. Information can be shared only in very limited circumstances, and we are bringing forward a new offence of information being wrongly disclosed.
To ensure that all our eligible young people can participate, we are introducing a new duty on local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland to support looked-after children with their new right to vote. Local authorities and HSC trusts in Northern Ireland will have a duty to raise awareness of how to register and to provide assistance to help them do so. Extending the franchise is not simply “job done” with this legislation; we need to actively support young people to exercise their right to vote. We will offer young people the information and support that they need to do precisely that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was saying a moment ago, up to 8 million people in the UK are either registered incorrectly or not included on the electoral register at all. Many of them find out only when it is too late, so they are denied their opportunity to vote. Our current process is out of date and has not kept pace with the world that we live in. We will replace this complicated, bureaucratic system with a modern, automated alternative that is as simple as possible and easier for voters to use. To get there, the Bill will allow pilots that test new and innovative approaches to electoral registration. Automated registration is already working in many countries: the examples of Germany and the Netherlands show how easy it can be.
Steve Reed
Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.
Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.
There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jeremy Corbyn
This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
I will give way to my hon. Friend later.
We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.
Steve Reed
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).
Jim Shannon
We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?
Steve Reed
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.
Joe Powell
Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?
Steve Reed
I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.
A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.
We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.
We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.
We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.
The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.
We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.
Steve Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.
Sorcha Eastwood
I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.
The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.
I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.
In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way and because the choices of the British people must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.”
When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation.
To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?
Sir James Cleverly
I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.
Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.
I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?
I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.
It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.
Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.
Lewis Cocking
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.
Sir James Cleverly
I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.
Emily Thornberry
I take objection to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely if someone is a citizen, they should be able to vote. It should be as easy as possible—as easy as breathing—to vote, because a citizen has a right to vote. Every attempt should be made to make voting easier, not more difficult. If automatic enrolment helps people to vote, that is what we should do. Of course we need to be careful about it, though, and one of the reasons why this is a rolling programme, rather than putting it in place everywhere on the same day, is presumably to ensure that it is done properly. In the end, we should all want the same thing; British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, and nothing should get in their way.
Sir James Cleverly
It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake.
As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir James Cleverly
I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.
The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.
The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Sir James Cleverly
Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm.
Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.
Kevin Bonavia
We have just heard the Conservative definitions of a child and an adult, but according to the law in this country, there is no single definition. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, the driving age in this country is 17, and the voting age has gone down over the decades. Surely we should be thinking about what it means to be able to vote. By bringing the voting age down to 16, we are bringing that to people who have the capacity to vote and who actually will vote. There is also evidence out there that 16-year-olds voting in Scotland are more likely to carry on voting. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that will be of benefit to our country—to the United Kingdom as a whole?
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Not long ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, some of us went down to the commando training centre at Lympstone to see the Royal Marines’ passing-out parade. One of the brave young people there was just 17, and at the end of the parade he was told, “Marine, go off and do your duty.” At 17, he should be allowed to vote. Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree with me?
Sir James Cleverly
Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
Sam Rushworth
On the basis of the argument that he is advancing, the right hon. Gentleman believes in children having sex, because the age of consent is 16—but I think that the mask slipped earlier when he said that this was gerrymandering and giving an electoral advantage. I wonder whether he will comment on why his party is so afraid that young people will not vote Conservative.
Sir James Cleverly
It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the valuable contribution that young people in Scotland have made to the democratic process, first in 2014, when they were able to vote in the independence referendum, and subsequently in Scottish local and parliamentary elections? Does he value their contribution?
Sir James Cleverly
I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.
Sir James Cleverly
I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.
Sir James Cleverly
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.
Kevin Bonavia
The shadow Secretary of State has asked, on a number of occasions, whether we agree with his so-called legal definition. The legal definition is always for the purposes of the law for which it is intended, so the Children Act definition is for the purposes of that Act, and what we are debating today is for the purposes of voting.
Sir James Cleverly
I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point?
I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?
As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so.
If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.
Sir James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making.
This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. I am proud to have worked on these important proposals in government and remain determined to ensure that we protect, renew and enhance our democracy.
Our democracy has inspired people and movements around the world. We are rightly proud of it, but as we have heard, democracy is hard won and fragile. Today there are forces that wish to damage our democracy and shake its foundations, with intimidation on the streets and disinformation online. Our democracy must be resilient and robust in the face of these threats, which is why this landmark Bill is so important. It represents the most ambitious change to our democracy for a generation by allowing 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in UK-wide elections for the very first time; by introducing tougher rules on political donations; by tackling the scourge of harassment, intimidation and abuse of those participating in public life, which is having a chilling effect on our democracy; and by improving our system of voter ID to encourage more people to engage with and participate in our democracy.
As we have already heard, votes at 16 is a historic opportunity to breathe new life into our democracy. If someone is old enough to work, pay tax and serve their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it is run, but that right to vote should be matched by the right to be informed and educated about our institutions, our politics and our policies. That is why it is crucial that we have high-quality citizenship education in our schools, and we must do more to connect with the millions of people who, as we have heard, are eligible to vote but choose not to take part in our democratic process.
I welcome the measures to strengthen the rules around political donations to address the risks posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democracy. I especially welcome the moves to introduce new “know your donor” and “follow the money” checks, and fines of up to half a million pounds for those who do not follow those rules, as well as the introduction of a UK connections test and increased transparency for corporate donations to prevent shell companies from funnelling dodgy donations to political parties.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend makes the case for why it is crucial to legislate to close those loopholes, so that we can clean up our politics and ensure that the public have confidence in our political system.
Turning to the subject of cryptocurrency, we know that it offers a number of ways of circumventing donation laws, including by using multiple crypto wallets with different addresses or fragmenting large donations into smaller amounts through crowdfunding in order to bypass the reporting threshold, and by offering anonymity through the use of privacy coins. Ireland, Brazil and several states in the US already have bans on crypto donations.
The enemies of democracy are constantly looking at new ways to undermine our system. Unless action is taken now, the threat of foreign interference in our democracy will continue to grow. The Government have previously committed to taking action, and I am reassured to hear from the Secretary of State that action will be taken to ensure that cryptocurrency does not find its way into political donations. This Bill provides a very important opportunity to legislate, so I implore the Secretary of State and the Minister to make sure that, once the Rycroft review has concluded, we include in this Bill the changes necessary to ensure that we ban cryptocurrency donations, in order to reduce the threat of foreign interference in our democracy.
I turn to the subject of harassment and intimidation in our politics. Our democracy depends on the willingness of ordinary people to step forward, to knock on doors and to serve our communities, so the new powers in this Bill to allow courts to impose tougher sentences for offences involving electoral intimidation, and to remove the requirements for candidates to publish their home addresses, are necessary protections. Although parliamentary candidates have had the option of taking their home addresses off the ballot paper, local candidates have not, and this is an important change to protect them.
Most Members of this House and many candidates, regardless of whether they were elected or not, carry their own experiences of threats and intimidation. The July2024 general election saw a disturbing spike in intimidation and harassment, with Electoral Commission research revealing that more than half of candidates experienced harassment and intimidation. The Speaker’s Conference found even more evidence of harassment and intimidation of candidates. Tyres were slashed, families were targeted and campaigners were driven off the streets, while women and minority ethnic candidates were disproportionately affected. However, all candidates in different ways found themselves facing harassment and intimidation. We cannot go on like this. This was not heated political debate; these were organised attempts to intimidate people into silence. Many elected representatives do not discuss the harassment they have faced as it can trigger further abuse and compromise our safety.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech. On that point, I know what she personally went through during the last general election, and many Members from right across the House have also had to face it. Does she agree with me that, if we do not address this, we will see good, locally rooted candidates feeling afraid to put themselves forward to enrich our democracy because of that fear and intimidation?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have heard many say exactly that. In fact, a number of us have ourselves wondered whether, if we had known what we know now about the state of harassment and intimidation in our politics, we would have stood for Parliament. Of course, we have to fight against these threats, because if we do not, the next generation will be put off politics. It is on us all to take action to make sure politics is a safe space in which people can operate and candidates can stand forward, whichever party they belong to.
The intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is not, of course, unique to one party or one group of candidates; it is widespread in a way that I had never imagined. The industrial scale of intimidation and threats we experienced in the run-up to the 2024 general election was unlike anything I had previously experienced, and I suspect the same applies to many other Members. There was organised disinformation and death threats in a campaign conducted with constant concerns for physical security and the security of campaigners and decent, law-abiding people who want to participate in our democracy. In my constituency and across the country, many brave campaigners stood up for our democracy and bravely fought against that hatred, but they should not have had to work in such a hostile environment.
This happens not just during the election cycle or election campaigns. We have seen Members threatened with murder and receiving death threats on a regular basis. We have seen local councillor candidates being threatened. When I was working on this strategy last summer, I received a threat to my life. Two weeks ago, I received another threat. Sadly, this is now commonplace, with too many MPs, candidates and local representatives experiencing this hostility. So we have to redouble our efforts to stop this hostility and the chilling effect it is having on our democracy. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to those who wish to undermine our elections in this way, and we have to work together on that across the parties.
It is not just the thugs on our streets; it is the hostile actors, which we heard about in the Front Benchers’ speeches. Hostile actors are exploiting online platforms to flood the debate with disinformation and deepfakes. Disinformation online fuels intimidation, hostility and violence offline. That has been the experience of many of us during the last election and subsequently. The toxic ecosystem is connected, and this Bill begins to address that reality, but we have to do more. Alongside this Bill, we need the Government to do much more to tackle the very serious threat of foreign interference through the use of online platforms, not to mention the proliferation of online threats and the failure of platforms to take action. That means more action to stop platforms allowing threats and online hostility against those in public life and our citizens.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I would like to add to that list of issues that need to be tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the role that the media play in our politics, the Government have a responsibility to think long and hard about what we do in that space?
Rushanara Ali
Absolutely. We all have such a responsibility, and I know of plenty of journalists in the media, particularly female journalists, who are being threatened and intimidated as well. This is a wider societal issue about making sure we can express ourselves freely and protect freedom of speech, but also protect those operating in our media, those in our politics and public life and, more widely, those participating in our democracy.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that what also fuels the division and the attacks on politicians is when some individuals, including Members of this House, express that they are driven mad by the sight of black and Asian people in different spaces in our society? Does she agree that that should stop, and that all Members have a responsibility to call it out?
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. We have to take action against racism, anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism and other forms of hostility and hatred towards particular groups in our society, especially those with protected characteristics. There are laws in place that need to be enforced, and those laws are often breached online. We must ensure that we take responsibility and show leadership in the way we conduct ourselves. Otherwise, we are going to see those with protected characteristics being driven out of public life. I am seeing that already in local communities and of course in our Parliament, because of what we are experiencing.
In conclusion, our democracy is fragile, and it must be supported and strengthened in the face of rapid change and the threats from foreign interference. It is our duty to be stewards of our democracy, leaving it in a better place than we found it. It is at the heart of our liberty and our citizenship, and we must defend it, nurture it and future-proof it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Our liberal democracy has become acutely vulnerable. Trust in our politics is being pulled apart at the seams. We face a flood of foreign money, and powerful men who hate our democracy, whether in silicon valley or the Kremlin, are working hard to undermine our social fabric and to interfere in our public life. Sadly, this Bill does not meet that moment and falls woefully short of the fundamental changes that our democracy urgently needs, even if we Lib Dems welcome some of the measures in it. We will be voting against the reasoned amendment and in favour of Second Reading, in the hope that the Bill can be substantially strengthened as it makes its way through Parliament.
I fear that the Government have not faced up to the crisis before us. Public trust in our political institutions is in freefall: 67% of the public think that politicians are just in it for themselves. It is no wonder that so many people who would make fantastic elected representatives are put off standing for election and take their talents elsewhere. The Electoral Commission has recorded growing dissatisfaction with our democracy and, frankly, I understand why. Westminster has been rocked by scandal after scandal, with partygate, the news that former Reform UK Wales leader Nathan Gill had been taking bribes to advance a pro-Russian agenda in the European Parliament, and the revelations about Peter Mandelson’s shocking conduct. We need root-and-branch reforms to our political system.
The Government claim to be modernising our democracy, but this Bill does not fix our outdated system, which continues to reward the most cynical members of the political establishment at the expense of everyone else. Where is the new accountability for politicians; where are the robust measures to really stamp out corruption and interference; and why is there nothing to address a voting system that was out of date a century ago, undermines accountability and is profoundly unfair?
Of course, there are worthwhile measures in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at 16 for decades. We have seen that succeed in Scotland, and we are proud to have helped secure that provision in this Bill. Young people pay taxes, face the consequences of political decisions and care deeply about the future of their country. Denying them a vote was always difficult to justify.
But this is far from enough to revive our democracy. As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they, and everyone who can vote in our country, feel confident. I recently met students from Marple college in my constituency. They will be voting for the first time at the next general election. We talked about what they needed to be ready to cast their votes. They are already articulate, well-informed on politics and enthusiastic. It is our responsibility to ensure that they feel confident to participate, confident that they will not be bombarded by disinformation, confident that their vote will count and confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose. They should be confident, too, that their civil liberties will be protected. We welcome the move towards automatic voter registration. We think it is a step in the right direction and we will support it, but it must fully respect people’s privacy as well as their right to vote.
To take a glaring example, new voters will still have identity papers demanded of them whenever they vote. That was implemented without decent evidence by a Tory party long out of ideas and full of cynicism. The Bill could have and should have been used to scrap the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme altogether. According to the Electoral Reform Society, 16,000 people were turned away from voting in 2024—against just 10 convictions for impersonation between 2019 and 2023. Which of those is really the greater threat to our democratic life? That is symptomatic of a Bill that is remarkably thin and all too timid, even in enforcing its own provisions.
I am baffled as to why the Government will not further strengthen the Electoral Commission in the face of historic threats to our democracy. We very much welcome the removal of the commission’s strategy and policy statement, but the commission itself says that while it
“welcomes many of the changes set out in the Bill, some provisions need to be strengthened to...better protect the system from foreign interference.”
We should remember that this regulator is not currently truly independent. Under the Elections Act 2022, the Conservative Government gave powers to Ministers to dictate the “roles and responsibilities” of the Electoral Commission in achieving the Government’s policy priorities. That made a mockery of the idea that politicians should not be able to interfere in elections, and it paved the way for any future Government, of whichever political hue, to rig our system. It is truly welcome that the Secretary of State announced plans to reinstate the independence of the commission by scrapping the strategy and policy statement. That should ensure non-partisan fair play in our elections.
It is on donations and foreign interference where the Liberal Democrats find the Bill to be most wanting. The case of Nathan Gill should stand as a stark warning about the levels of attempted interference we now face. The gaping holes in the Bill will allow foreign money to continue to flood in and infiltrate our democracy. For instance, using company revenue rather than profit as the test for determining whether a business has sufficient connection to the UK to make political donations, is too weak a safeguard. It can be too easily gamed. Spotlight on Corruption points out that the cap on corporations currently does not have teeth and should be focused on profit. A company turning over significant revenue in the UK, while being effectively controlled from abroad by interests hostile to our democracy, could still make donations under these provisions. That is not good enough. Foreign regimes and their political elites should have no business in our democracy whatsoever.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There has, rightly, been a lot of talk on both sides of the House about restricting and capping foreign donations, and how they are regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at how foreign individuals and foreign states use social media to influence and change election results?
Lisa Smart
My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the big ways foreign individuals can influence our democracy is through money. The other way is through influence, using money from companies, often not owned in the UK, that control a lot of the information that British citizens see. He is entirely right to make that point.
The lack of a cap on political donations is a fundamental gap. Although the Bill introduces transparency and due diligence requirements, more transparency alone is not enough when individuals and corporations can still donate unlimited sums to political parties.
Sam Rushworth
A moment ago the hon. Lady referenced Nathan Gill. I share her abhorrence at what Reform’s leader in Wales did in taking bribes from Russia, but it was already illegal—it was a case of being caught. What does she suggest that the Bill should do to prevent those sorts of illegal activities from happening?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for allowing me a bit of space to expand on this point further. Companies should have to prove profit in the UK, not just revenue in the UK, to be able to donate. There is a real danger that money from abroad, from state actors and non-state actors, can be funnelled through third-party campaign groups—think-tanks and others—as a way of trying to influence our democracy. It is entirely possible that very wealthy individuals or state actors abroad put money into think-tanks, which then put money into political parties. That is the sort of thing I would look to amend as the Bill makes its way through the House. Unlimited donations mean unlimited influence. They corrode public trust and distort political priorities. Until we cap donations, we will continue to have a democracy that is for sale.
Finally, there is an extraordinary irony that, despite its grand title, the Bill does not even touch the root of unfairness and distrust in our democracy. It does nothing about a first-past-the-post voting system that was outdated decades ago and is a millstone around the neck of our democratic life. This electoral system consistently delivers results that bear little resemblance to the actual preferences of the electorate. Millions of votes count for nothing.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree that, since the House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill which I presented in December 2024, and since the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a motion to bring in proportional representation at one of its conferences, there is a wide acceptance that it is time to scrap first past the post, which does not deliver the results that people vote for? Is the Bill not an enormous missed opportunity?
Lisa Smart
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I applaud the work she has done during her time here to move the case forward for a fairer, more representative voting system. The Bill is a huge opportunity and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on how we can strengthen it and make it even better.
Martin Wrigley
Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the single transferable vote system is good enough for selecting Select Committee Chairs and the alternative vote system is good enough for mayors, they should be good enough in other elections, too?
Lisa Smart
I do. I fear it would try the patience of the House if I were to get into that level of detail about my favourite voting systems with my hon. Friend—we only have a further three hours of this debate, so I will press on—but I do agree with him that there are more representative ways to elect our representatives that we should look at.
We Liberal Democrats will continue to press for proportional representation so that we can finally make every vote count. It is a matter of basic fairness. No Bill claiming to modernise our democracy can be taken seriously while it ignores this question. Worse, it does not even introduce elections for our second Chamber, leaving the House of Lords unreformed, unelected and, in the current climate, frankly indefensible. Peers face no meaningful accountability to the public whose lives they affect.
The Bill takes some limited, but sadly too timid, steps in the right direction. It fails to seize the opportunity to rebuild trust and make our vulnerable, brittle democracy more resilient. We look forward to working constructively to strengthen it during the parliamentary process, because we must be more courageous and ambitious than the Bill currently is. We must stop taking our democracy for granted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will have noticed that we have many, many more Members on their feet than we have time allocated, so we will start with a five-minute limit.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
May I start by saying how happy I am to be contributing to today’s debate? Members who have been in the House for a while will know that I am a long-term advocate for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Over the years, we have had many robust debates on the issue. Some may even remember when I was successful in my very first private Member’s Bill ballot, way back in 2015. As a brand new MP, that was very daunting and I can chat privately to any Members who might want to hear about all the gaffs I made at the time. Once I got over my initial nerves, it did not take long to decide to put forward votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, alongside decent political education.
During the 2014 Scottish referendum campaign, which many people have mentioned, when 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote for the first time in Scotland, I was hugely impressed—not surprised, just impressed—by how well informed they were and by how seriously they took their voting responsibilities. I knew I had to play my part in pushing the issue up the agenda.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the 2014 referendum experience. After that, I brought a section 30 order before the House to give the Scottish Parliament the power to lower the voting age to 16 for local council and Scottish Parliament elections. I can tell the hon. Lady that there is nobody in Scotland now suggesting that we would go back to a voting age of 18. Is that not the acid test for the strength of our case?
Vicky Foxcroft
I completely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has articulated so well.
At the time, some saw this as a controversial topic for a private Member’s Bill—I am sure there have been more controversial topics since. [Laughter.] It was not the first time that this issue had been pursued; I believe there had been 18 or 19 other attempts to take such legislation forward. I am proud that the Labour party committed to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto, and that now the Labour Government are delivering on our promise.
Young people’s voices matter. If they can pay taxes, why should they not have a say over how they are spent? If they can have a child, why should they not have a say over their future? If they can join the army, why should they not have a say over the defence of our country?
When I visit schools and colleges, I am always struck by how incredibly thoughtful and articulate the students are. When I visited Christ the King sixth-form college in Brockley a few weeks ago, we discussed everything from social media and the cost of living to housing and international issues, and one student told me she was running to be young mayor of Lewisham—which, by the way, is the longest-running young mayor programme in the country, having started in 2004. This year we had 42 candidates and voter turnout was 59%—higher than we get in some by-elections. Despite that, when election day comes, those same young people are told that they are not old enough and therefore do not get a say. They can pay taxes, have a child, leave home, and join the army, but they have no say over their future.
Maturity is not something we magically achieve on our 18th birthday. We do not test the political knowledge of 40-year-olds before they enter the polling station, although some might say we probably should—just joking. We do not deny the vote to those who choose not to follow politics closely. Democracy is not about passing an exam; it is about inclusion, equality and trust.
Countries all across the world are lowering the voting age, including Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ethiopia. However, many of the countries letting young people vote at 16 also have strong civic education, so I urge the Minister to ensure that political education forms a strong part of the changes that take place. My private Member’s Bill made provision for improved citizenship education.
Research shows that when people are given the vote earlier, they are more likely to develop a lifelong voting habit. If we want to reverse the trend of declining turnout, especially among younger people, the answer is not to keep them out, but to bring them in. This is not just about improving turnout, though: when we deny young people the vote, we send a message that the opinions of the next generation matter less.
Yet young people are deeply affected by the decisions we make in this House. When we talk about getting more young people into work, we need their voices. They should be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. When we have local students in my office to do work experience—from Addey and Stanhope and Deptford Green schools—they are interested in how politics works, how it affects their lives and how they can champion the changes they desperately want to see. They are the ones who will inherit the world we shape today. Ten years on from my first private Member’s Bill, today is the day we ensure that they have their rightful place in shaping their future.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change.
Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation. There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all.
I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have. To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election.
Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
We have heard this argument a couple of times, and the right hon. Gentleman is making it well. He is making a grave accusation. Surely the easiest way to put this argument to bed would be for the Secretary of State to simply intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and state that auto-enrolment will be rolled out in all areas of the country before the next UK general election.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.
Emily Thornberry
Let me do the best I can. Is it seriously the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that a Labour Secretary of State might introduce auto-enrolment in areas where that will help Labour? Is he therefore saying that the more people who vote, the more Labour is helped? Is that his central argument?
Sir Gavin Williamson
No. It is important that the Bill does not define which areas will have auto-enrolment. In theory, constituencies or areas that have a greater propensity to vote Labour—or used to—could be prioritised. We would like clarity from the Secretary of State on this point, and I am happy to give way to him, so that he can provide it. In fairness, if every area of the country were to have auto-enrolment, that would reduce or eliminate the risk, but this is a concern. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will address that with absolute clarity.
The issue is not just the legislation; it is the perception of where the Government are going. The Secretary of State got himself into some difficulty when the Government were seen to be trying to take away the right of people to vote in local council elections. I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.
Sam Rushworth
Under first past the post, every seat is a different contest, so I am still confused about why the right hon. Gentleman feels that enabling more people to vote will be beneficial to the Labour party.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is both confused and hard of hearing. I also pointed out that straight after the next general election, the Electoral Commission will redo the boundaries for the whole country, and that will be based on the electoral roll for every single constituency and area across the country. Certain areas will have auto-enrolment and other areas will not. That will have a significant impact on the redistribution. I hope that has helped the hon. Member’s confusion. [Interruption.] I will move on.
There is a fantastic opportunity here, which the Secretary of State could seize, to end the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in this country. That right is not available to UK citizens in Commonwealth countries. The only country where there is an automatic right for UK citizens to vote is the Republic of Ireland, and that arrangement is reciprocated in the UK. There are up to 2.7 billion people on this globe who, on moving to the United Kingdom, could have the automatic right to vote here. That should be looked at very seriously. As the Bill moves through the House, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the option of addressing this open access to our democracy for anyone in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will reduce the time limit after the next speech to four minutes. I call Navendu Mishra on a five-minute time limit.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Democracy is valuable. It is hard won and always worth protecting and defending. Stockport played a major role in the 1819 Peterloo massacre, when a large contingent of local protestors marched to Manchester to demand voting reform.
I believe that we must always look for ways to make our democratic system more accessible, more inclusive and more representative. Giving young people the chance to have a say in the future of our country is important. Decisions that the Government make now will not only affect young people today but have an enduring impact on their entire life. As such, it is only right and fair that young people are able to play a role in our democratic system by voting.
I want to thank Michelle McLaughlin MBE and her team at Stockport college for their outstanding work in enrolling students on to the electoral register. The college automatically registers students to vote as part of the enrolment process. That simple administrative step removes barriers for young people and makes participation the norm, rather than the exception. Trafford and Stockport College Group was the first further education institution in England to launch this type of voter registration service for 16-year-olds, ensuring that more young people across Stockport engage with the democratic process at an early age. This is exactly the kind of proactive approach that we should be encouraging nationwide. The team would be grateful for a ministerial visit, given the work that they have done in this area.
Sadly, women and minority ethnic representatives have faced a shocking increase in threatening behaviour directed at them in recent years. My understanding is that women of colour have the worst abuse and threats directed at them. Abuse, threats and intimidation of any kind are simply unacceptable. They risk deterring people from taking part in public life or putting themselves forward for elected office. I welcome the important measures to protect candidates, electoral staff and campaigners from intimidation and abuse.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made an important point about people experiencing homelessness. They should have the right to vote too, and I thank him for making an intervention about that. I support his suggestion that we help more people who are experiencing homelessness into our democratic system.
I would like to say a few words about standards in public life, in the light of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election. In February 2026—just last month—a Tameside council report found that a member of the infamous “Trigger Me Timbers” WhatsApp group had made racist comments towards me. They questioned my accent and my looks and ridiculed me. More importantly, they did the same to many members of the public and Labour’s membership. As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, this person was a major participant in the group. The report found that a “reasonable person” would find their remarks about me racist. This person was a Labour councillor at the time, and a former Member of this House and a current Member of this House were active members of that hateful WhatsApp group. Sadly, I had to find out from the press that Tameside council had commissioned that report, and that a ruling was made about the participant’s behaviour against me and others. As is to be expected, this has had an enormous negative impact on my family and me.
Can the Minister tell us what more the Government intend to do to strengthen standards for elected representatives, both at local government and parliamentary level? That could include tougher sanctions for serious misconduct, a mandatory code of conduct, and accessible routes of redress for victims of such appalling behaviour. I am in a very privileged position—I am a Member of the House of Commons, and I am able to deliver this speech and make my points clear—but many members of the public, and many lay members of the Labour party, do not have that same opportunity. I hope that the Minister will listen to my comments.
Overall, I welcome the Bill. It makes important progress in strengthening participation and protecting candidates, but it could go further in lifting standards among elected representatives. Everyone, especially elected representatives, has a responsibility to treat all people with respect, regardless of their views, background, appearance or culture. We should expect that from our colleagues, but sadly that has not been my experience. I am saddened to say that in my view, the Labour party has not dealt with this in a very good way. I would like to end by thanking everyone at Stockport council’s democratic and electoral services team. They do a really important job for our town, and I am grateful to them.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate on such an important Bill that represents a long-overdue modernisation of our democratic framework, but the Government should be in no doubt that we Liberal Democrats will push them to go further, faster. For decades, my party has campaigned for young people’s voices to be properly recognised, so I am delighted to see the voting age finally lowered to 16. This change will enfranchise around 1.7 million 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them a say in decisions that shape their future.
Since becoming MP for Guildford, I have visited many schools across my constituency and spoken with young people whose thoughtful, informed questions make it abundantly clear that they are more than ready to participate in our democracy. While some may argue that 16 and 17-year-olds lack world awareness, I fundamentally disagree. With pre-registration from age 14, and with the right safeguards, we can build lifelong democratic habits and help close the participation gap.
We Liberal Democrats also welcome measures in the Bill that protect our democracy from the corrupting influence of dark money. The new “know your donor” requirements and tighter rules on corporate and unincorporated association donations are essential to prevent foreign interference and restore trust in how politics is funded. We will call for further important changes to strengthen the Bill in this area.
However, the Bill misses a vital opportunity to fix our broken electoral system. First past the post is unfair, outdated and increasingly indefensible.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we need a radical reset of democracy in our country to reinvigorate trust, which has recently been lost? We need to cap big donations, bring in fair votes, and abolish the ludicrous voter ID scheme from the last Government.
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Government to listen to the 60% of the public who want a fairer voting system, including members of their own party, and take very seriously the case for proportional representation.
I declare my interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and I welcome the inclusion of our recommendations in the Bill. We live in a time when abuse and threats deter talented people, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, from standing for public office. I am pleased that the Bill will better protect candidates and their families, but we must go further. We need to update section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes to smear candidates. Technology is moving rapidly, and those intent on undermining our democracy are moving with it, so we must future-proof this legislation.
Looking across this House, I can see that we have made real progress in reflecting the diversity of the communities that we serve, but there is still far to go. The Bill is an opportunity to enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires political parties to publish diversity data. It has long been a Liberal Democrat commitment, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Centenary Action that have campaigned tirelessly for such transparency.
I urge the Government to reinstate the access to elected office fund in England, which was scrapped in 2020. The Bill claims to support disabled candidates, yet it offers no financial mechanism to make that a reality. Wales and Scotland already provide such support, so why not England?
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important point about the accessibility of elections for disabled candidates and voters. Disability charities have made the point that there is some way to go in ensuring that our elections are truly accessible for disabled people. Does she agree that it is important that the Bill does that?
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to ensure that everyone is able to take part in voting, particularly those with visual impairments.
It is an anomaly that Wales and Scotland offer support for accessing elected office, but England does not. Why does England not have that fund? We must ensure that people with disabilities are not prevented from standing to represent their communities.
I am pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill so that our democracy is truly safe, fair and representative of all.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Bill introduces timely reforms, such as extending the right to vote to young people, and it addresses the rising and ever more concerning issues of harassment and intimidation. With foreign interference expected to intensify the deterioration of the international security environment, and given the threats posed by wealthy donors, crypto and AI, I encourage the Government to go further. That is where I will focus my remarks.
Last September, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy heard from Spotlight on Corruption that there has been foreign interference in 21 elections across Europe in recent years. Research from a 2022 US intelligence assessment estimated that Russia has spent $300 million on political influence in 24 countries. Beyond direct state influence, there is the issue of obscenely wealthy donors and corporations. Corporate donations have tripled over the last three elections in the UK, rising from £14 million in 2017 to £42 million in 2024.
Beyond those challenges, the Bill introduces valuable provisions. The political finance reforms are good, and it creates a new “know your donor” requirement to ensure that political parties conduct the necessary due diligence. It requires parties to verify that companies that wish to donate can demonstrate sufficient revenue and a qualifying connection to the UK or Ireland, and it will enable the Electoral Commission to issue significantly increased penalties—up to £500,000. I would like the Bill to go further on business and corporate donations. I want there be a longer qualifying period and a profit measure to protect the system more against phantom businesses and shell companies.
Elsewhere, our Committee is calling for a temporary moratorium on accepting crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance and stronger systems. We want the Electoral Commission to have stronger powers, including the ability to compel financial institutions to provide information relating to funds connected to donations so that they can be investigated more fully. We want a single police lead for political finance and foreign interference, and a review into the sentencing of political finance offences.
Personally, I think we need to look more at the role of think-tanks and how they are funded. I would like the Bill to go further, with a longer qualifying period and profit measures to protect the system. I want a donation cap on corporate and personal donations. I want consideration to be given to amending the schedule of penalties to make it more proportionate to the donor’s wealth. We must ensure that the fees and salaries that companies pay MPs in whatever field, but particularly in media, fall under political finance regulations.
I absolutely welcome the Bill. We need much tighter regulation across our political finance, including to address the interference with which states and individuals wish to influence our democracy. I very much look forward to working with the Ministers in the coming weeks.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
This is an important Bill, and I support some of the aims and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out at the beginning. I also share many of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).
All Members take representing children seriously. In the five times that I have been lucky enough to be elected, my first pledge has been that I will serve everybody in the Mid Norfolk constituency, including and particularly those who do not have a voice and need to be spoken for, and I always reference children. With the gentlest and greatest respect, I say to colleagues who are in danger of suggesting that if we do not pass this Bill, we are signalling that we do not care about young people that that is not the case. I was elected to this House quite a long time ago, and I know that there is the danger that well-intended legislation can have unintended consequences that we later regret.
Given that time is short, I will focus my comments on my own experience of having been, I think, the first parliamentary victim of an AI deepfake video attack. I will point out some of the obvious gaps in the law that that has made clear to me, and the danger of political disinformation and serious disruption to our politics. Having consulted widely in the past four or five months, I want to make a particular point about the importance of protecting all people—not just politicians—against having their identity stolen. That is a fundamental issue in a digital age.
For colleagues who were doing other things on that day in November, let me say that when I found myself the victim of an AI deepfake attack, my phone went hot and I suddenly found myself being called all manner of names that I could not possibly repeat to this House. It was quite clear that I was suddenly at the heart of a media storm, and I had no idea what had caused it.
I then saw the video. It was indeed a video of me in my Westminster office, wearing my customary tank top, waving my hands around and speaking—not dubbed—about my decision that, because the political party that I am proud to represent and serve had let this country down, I was joining Reform. Leave aside for a minute the ridiculousness of that proposal and the insulting suggestion that somebody who prides himself on taking his politics seriously and thinking about the philosophical basis of it would join a rabble based only on pub populism, the more serious issue is that my constituents were deeply confused and democracy in my constituency was disrupted.
When I contacted Meta, the platform on which that scurrilous, mischievous and disinforming information had been published, it said to me, “Well, it doesn’t breach any of our guidelines.” I understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable young children from grooming and protecting people from economic fraud, but I put it to the House that seriously misrepresenting an elected Member for the purposes of political misinformation and disruption is an important issue and should not be allowed. It should be a breach of Meta’s guidelines.
When I spoke to the police, they admirably did take it seriously. In fact, they encouraged me, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring a test case, but I would have had to have made the case compellingly that I was suffering psychological damage. Now, I may well be suffering psychological damage, but I am not going to tell the people of Mid Norfolk that I cannot take a joke. It is really important that we in this House defend humour and satire—they play a really important role in our democracy—but this is different.
I support the amendments that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), a fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, is tabling to stop political disinformation, but is it not time that we passed a law to protect all citizens against having their identity stolen? Everybody in this country should go to bed at night not worrying that they may wake up in the morning and find that somebody has stolen their identity, whatever the purpose.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). I thank the Minister for engaging with Members. We now have a Bill of seven parts, 81 clauses and 11 schedules. On young voters, I hope that the team will work with the Department for Education so that young people understand the democratic process. Some schools do it, but it is a matter for everyone.
Richard Baker
That is an important point. In Scotland, education did not happen to the extent that it should have, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has made some recommendations. I therefore very much welcome what the Secretary of State said, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that colleagues in the Education Department recognise its importance?
Valerie Vaz
That is true. Our Education Department does a fantastic job, but this work needs to be extended to every single school, and perhaps made compulsory, so that when young people get to vote, they know the difference between misinformation, disinformation and the truth.
On voter registration, valid points have been made about what forms of ID can be used. Those need to be extended, especially as 16-year-olds may have different forms of ID when they get the vote. Auto-registration is welcome, and so important—it was the poll tax that stopped people going on the register—so it is good that Government gateways will be used to ensure people are on the register.
I think that the Secretary of State has missed a trick: I would have liked compulsory voting, but maybe that is a step too far. In Australia, where they have had it since 1929, the turnout is 90%.
On campaign and political expenditure in relation to donor money. I like the Electoral Commission’s idea of a donor declaration, with the total donation listed for the entire year and based, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, on the company’s profits, not just on revenue. Some organisations can operate as a company but not generate enough money to make donations and therefore be open to outside influence. That measure would defeat the mischief that the Bill is trying to deal with. We need to lift that corporate veil.
I am delighted that the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement has now been revoked—that was to be the main part of my speech. A Government of any kind should not be interfering with the Electoral Commission. It should get no direction from a Government. I remember saying that it was unnecessary and not proportionate during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. At the time, every Committee of the House that looked at it said that there was no evidence for it. I am really pleased by this revocation.
The commission is accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. At present, it has 10 members, five of whom are picked by the Speaker, with the other five ex officio. Unlock Democracy is arguing for more lay members on the commission. I do not know whether those should be lay members as we have in other Committees, or if it should be extended to other political parties so that it should be politically neutral.
I am really pleased that the Electoral Commission has got its independence back. I hope that the Bill will get us the public information and publicity needed to encourage people to exercise their civic duty to register and to vote.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election.
I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.
Luke Akehurst
I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?
Danny Kruger
We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18.
I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Why don’t you tell your party leader?
Danny Kruger
That is our party position.
The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.
It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.
It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Danny Kruger
I will finish the point and then certainly give way to both gentlemen.
We are seeing the criminal abuse of British democracy by Labour, and now by the Green party. This malignant new force has now occupied—
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman has just made the most extraordinary allegation about an electoral process last week: he suggested that 12% of all votes were somehow or other invalid because of pressure that he claims was put on them. Has he got any real evidence, or is that just an easy assertion to make to grab some headlines on social media and elsewhere?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.
Stephen Gethins
May I first congratulate the Green party on its significant majority and its win? It is not my party, but I will congratulate it for that significant win over Reform and the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that every single UK citizen, regardless of their faith or ethnic background, has as much right to cast their vote as any other, without fear or favour?
Danny Kruger
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the principle that should be applied.
Danny Kruger
That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse a political party in the Chamber of a “criminal abuse of democracy”. Did I hear that correctly? Is that remark in order, or does the hon. Gentleman—I use that word loosely—now need to back up his allegation with some hard evidence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am hoping that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) will reconsider his words and withdraw them.
Danny Kruger
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently suggested that it was a party that was abusing our electoral system. What I am actually suggesting is that there is abuse of our electoral system through an influential network that applies in these constituencies. That appears to be the case.
Danny Kruger
I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The most personal form of power each of us has is the power to choose. When we mark our ballot, we exercise something profound and meaningful: our power to decide freely what kind of future we want, and that choice belongs to each of us. But today it is clear that our power to freely decide our future is under attack, not because our vote has been taken away or because of voter fraud, but because the environment in which we make up our minds is being deliberately distorted. Hostile states—especially Russia—are investing in digital tools designed to confuse, divide and destabilise us. At the same time, big tech has built systems that reward the strongest reaction: rage over fact, speed over accuracy and repetition over reflection. One seeks to weaken us, the other profits from whatever captures our attention, and together they distort the spaces in which many of us now make up our minds.
We have come together to put forward amendments that would help the Representation of the People Bill to continue to maintain democracy as we expect it to. We already accept the election rules that require us to regulate spending, prohibit impersonation and enforce transparency. We choose to do that because our democracy is too important to leave unguarded, and the digital space where so many of our choices are now formed should be no different. If our duty is to protect people’s power to choose, these five things must follow.
First, we must identify the crime. At the moment, lots of laws apply, but if it is not specific, it is hard for law enforcement to act. We must codify that the existing laws will apply to these digital behaviours, with a recognition that these are serious offences with serious consequences.
Secondly, we must shine a light. If a video is artificially generated to impersonate a candidate, voters have the right to know. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has described his own experience in this regard. We need much higher levels of disclosure and labelling of where information comes from, so that people can better understand what they are seeing. That is why we need more regulation and transparency around political advertising, with all paid digital advertising being kept publicly available in a library so that it is open for all to see.
Thirdly, we must demand that major platforms play their proper role in society. These platforms shape what millions of people see during an election and they must be accountable. These amendments would enable Ofcom to demand action from these platforms, unless they want to face major consequences, by making electoral offences a priority offence under the law. With our success in forcing Grok to take action on notification, we know that we can act to protect people. No platform is too big or too powerful.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Member agree that our joint hon. Friend from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), was woefully let down by Meta when he attempted to get his own video taken down?
Emily Darlington
I completely agree. I think we all agree, no matter what side of the House we are on, that a misrepresentation of that kind distorts the electorate’s views. The reality is that it should be taken down. I think we can all agree on that fact.
Fourthly, law enforcement and regulatory bodies must have the power to act. The Electoral Commission must have more power to investigate, with real-time access to the platform data that is vital to understanding the impact of algorithmic systems and the role of inauthentic behaviour through bots. Regulators must have the power to compel major platforms to take action, including in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. We need to have a standard way to let the public know about incidents when they happen. They need to be informed.
Fifthly, these rules must apply year-round. One of the reasons that Meta will not take that content down is that we are not in an electoral period. These online methodologies are so powerful because they recognise the truth that we make our choices not just in the election period; we are making up our minds all the time. Let us get our election law in line with that reality.
Finally, we are proposing an amendment that goes to the core of how we treat each other. We must take action to reduce the abuse of candidates. I commend Mr Speaker and his Conference for their important work on this issue, because we all know too personally where this leads. Not only have we already lost beloved colleagues and friends to violence, but we also lose the talented people who will be put off from running in the first place. This is a robust set of choices that we in the Chamber can make to protect the future that we live in together. They are not about shutting down arguments or preventing someone from speaking their mind; they are about protecting the space for each of us to make the choice freely, and for those spaces to be filled with genuine discourse and arguments.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has spoken passionately about the risks of democratic interference. I know this is something that she has thought about in great detail. She may be aware that during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018 we had an amendment to help to facilitate digital watermarking, which in this space would help not only with the copyright AI issue but particularly with the risk of democratic interference. Authenticity in communications is so important.
In my contribution to this debate, I want to talk about votes at 16. It is an incredible privilege to live in the United Kingdom and to be a citizen of the UK. One of our privileges is that we have a long-established history of free and fair elections, and many of our ancestors fought pretty hard and made great sacrifices to get the voter franchise that we have at the moment. Voting is really important. It is important as an adult act for a citizen of our country. Voting matters. That impact matters. Voting is part of the contractual relationship that we have with the state. As citizens of our country, we have a right to vote and to influence the decisions made on our behalf by our representatives, whether that is at local or parliamentary level.
I am concerned that taking away the adultness of voting, by saying that children—people below the age of 18—now have that expanded voter franchise, will diminish the status of voting in our country. It will take voting away from being an act where someone has to pass an age barrier to be recognised as an adult in our society.
Florence Eshalomi
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, and I know that he speaks with a lot of clarity and authority. He visits schools and colleges in his constituency, as many of us do. Does he agree that, as Members, we have meaningful, impactful discussions with those young people, and that those young people should be enfranchised to vote?
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think there is a difference between representing people and people having the ability to vote for us. If we were to take that argument to its ultimate conclusion, it would expand the voter franchise not only to every single age but to non-citizens. I do not know if people agree with that—[Interruption.] It will be interesting to hear if that debate expands. I am sure that many people under the age of 18 have the decision-making capacity, maturity and ability to vote, but this debate is not about that. It is not about someone’s ability to vote; it is about whether they should vote and the status we afford to voting enfranchisement.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is making an interesting argument that voting should be defined not by age, but by a contract of citizenship. Could he share what he thinks those criteria might be—living in the country, paying tax or working here?
Dr Spencer
One of those criteria should be that one is an adult, because voting is an adult act, and the other criterion should be citizenship. We do not have time for a debate today on how we approach citizenship in the UK and what that actually means, but if we start trying to unravel—
Luke Akehurst
Does the hon. Gentleman’s reference to citizenship imply that Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, who have been enfranchised for about 100 years, should be disenfranchised in this country?
Dr Spencer
I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.
Emily Darlington
If we were to link voting with brain development and maturity, that would mean that men get the right to vote about five years after women. Should we base it on that science?
Dr Spencer
The point the hon. Member makes illustrates exactly why we have to use an adult citizenship criteria, not one based on capability or ability, because the moment we start to do that, all sorts of awful things risk happening. People should get the right to vote in the UK if they are a citizen and if they are an adult, and that is it. We should never put at risk someone’s right to vote because of considerations about their cognitive ability, and that goes in both directions.
People should be careful what they wish for in making arguments to remove adult status and citizenship from voter enfranchisement. They may not like where they end up.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
There is much in the Bill to welcome. Extending participation, improving voter registration and strengthening the integrity of our elections are all steps in the right direction, but in the time available, I want to concentrate on one thing that this Bill could do but does not. While it improves aspects of participation, it does not address the way that votes are translated into representation in this House.
The electoral system we have was not designed for the political landscape we see today. When the modern party system was taking shape a hundred or so years ago, the assumption was that British politics would continue, as it had previously, in a two-party framework. As we all know, that is not what we have today. The country has changed; our politics has changed. Our politics has become more fragmented, and our democracy —our democratic system—must be able to change with it to accommodate that changed reality. It is increasingly common for Members of this House to be elected without majority support in our own constituencies. It is increasingly common for voters to feel compelled to vote tactically, rather than with their hearts, and to vote against the outcome they do not, rather than the one they do, want. As a result, it is increasingly common for people to question whether their vote is meaningful in any sense at all.
Mike Martin
This is the key point: in an election, if someone has to vote against what they do not want, it poisons our whole democratic well, because voters feel that they end up with something they have not chosen. They have made a negative choice, rather than a positive choice.
Patrick Hurley
The hon. Member makes a valid point, and I hope the House listens.
It is not healthy for our democracy to be like this. I am not suggesting that individual Members lack legitimacy, but that the system itself is losing the confidence of the people we represent. It is for those reasons that there is a strong case for seriously considering alternatives to the first-past-the-post system. The alternative vote, for instance, would retain the constituency link, local accountability and the principle that each area elects its own representative, but it would also ensure that those elected to this place do so with a majority of support from our voters in our constituencies and not merely a plurality.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?
Patrick Hurley
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about poisoning the well of politics, and that was a great example of making a partisan point when it was unnecessary to do so.
The alternative vote would also allow voters to express their genuine preferences. It would strengthen the mandate on which we are all elected to this place. It would have completely transformed in a positive way the two by-elections and the by-election campaigns that we have seen in this Parliament. Instead of appealing to voters to keep the worst candidate out of office, which happened in one of those by-elections, we would have an appeal to voters on a more progressive and positive basis.
As a way of getting to that position, I want to express my support for the proposal to establish a national commission on electoral reform. A commission would allow the evidence to be examined properly. It would allow the public to engage seriously with the options available to them and would allow any future decisions to be made on the basis of broad consensus.
The Labour movement was founded on the principle that the working class should have a meaningful voice in the decisions that impact on our lives. That principle remains just as important today as it was when my party was founded. Ensuring that our electoral system reflects the realities of modern Britain and commands the confidence of those who we represent is part of honouring the tradition of my party and movement.
As I say, this Bill contains many welcome measures, but we should also be willing to recognise that strengthening democracy is an ongoing task. Supporting a national commission on electoral reform and giving serious consideration to reforms such as the alternative vote would be a measured, responsible and sensible step in that direction. I hope that this House will approach that question in the same spirit of democratic renewal that has served our country so well in the past.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Although it would be churlish to deny that this Bill is a step forward, it is important to look at what it is a step forward from. I am one of the few Members of the House who sat through the Elections Act 2022 and went through it line by line in Committee. Along with colleagues who now sit on the Government Benches, we were united in saying that that Tory election Bill was an affront to democracy. But now in power, Labour has taken that affront to democracy and, rather than ripping it into a million pieces, is doing what Labour seems to do best: take the very worst of Tory legislation and make it slightly less offensive. Although elements of the Bill will improve existing legislation, and we will therefore support it, this is not what we were promised, and I fear that it will be seen as a huge missed opportunity.
We very much welcome the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK general elections, which would bring this place in line with Scotland, which has enjoyed that for more than a decade and where it has proven to be an unqualified success. We also welcome efforts to clamp down on dark money infiltrating UK politics. Shining a light on the murky world of Westminster political donations is long overdue. The Labour party has been promising that since 1997, so I think we had best put it in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” pile, particularly given that the scandal of dodgy donations that has now disgraced the Labour party, through Labour Together, continues to swirl around Labour MPs.
As an Opposition party, one of our biggest arguments with the Tories was about the introduction of voter ID. We argued that it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The now Prime Minister was right when he said that it would lock people out of democracy. Yet now that Labour is in power, rather than scrapping the entire scheme, it has chosen to keep it and merely increase the number of acceptable forms of ID, knowing full well that the scheme disadvantages ethnic minority communities, the young, the homeless and the elderly.
My problem with the Bill goes beyond what is in it; it is what is not in it. The rejection—once again—of any form of proportional representation is a scandal. The fragmentation of UK politics is happening at pace. The Government’s refusal to consider proportional representation is dangerously short sighted. Parliamentary elections have become a race to achieve 34%, because, as we know, that is where landslides happen. There could be a reality check coming after the next election, when a party whose Members sit not a million miles away from me, and which refuses to play by the rules, achieves a huge majority on barely a third of the vote. I urge the Government to reconsider their opposition to proportional representation. If they do not, we could all live to regret it.
The Bill is deficient in several other areas: there are still weaknesses and loopholes in political finance, registration must be rolled out much quicker, there must be much tighter cryptocurrency regulations, and yet again, for whatever reason, the Labour party has decided to ignore the abomination of democracy at the other end of the corridor. The Bill is a million miles from being perfect, but on the basis that it is a very small step in the right direction, we will support it.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, particularly the parts that will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, introduce automatic voter registration, and widen the list of accepted forms of voter ID. By taking those steps, the Government are improving the way in which our democracy runs and our citizens engage with it.
There are ways in which the Bill can be improved, however. I will talk about unincorporated associations. Although such associations are used legitimately by some, they can also be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, and there is potential for them to be used for foreign interference in our political system. Transparency International UK found that, of the £40 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million came from unknown sources under the existing rules, so it is certainly time for change. That is especially true since the previous Government took the opportunity in their last few years to increase the thresholds for the reporting of political donations from unincorporated associations, which was a thoroughly retrograde step—one that I am very pleased we are addressing today.
The Bill takes welcome steps to prevent unincorporated associations from being used to conceal donations from impermissible sources, and to reduce the level at which they must register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. However, the reporting threshold for all those measures remains unnecessarily high. The criticism of our current system is not only that it allows dark money into our political system, but that it is unnecessarily complex and confusing. The Government should take the opportunity that the Bill presents to tackle both issues by reducing the reporting threshold for unincorporated associations to £500—equal with the permissibility threshold. To deliver maximum transparency, I urge Ministers to consider whether the Bill should require information to be published on the purpose and activities of unincorporated associations, as well as who controls them.
Let me touch briefly on my work as vice-chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Last year, we published a report into the 2024 general election, and made recommendations to the Government, some of which are reflected in the Bill, which I welcome. During the Committee’s inquiry, I asked the chair of the Electoral Commission why our elections are held on Thursdays. I was told that it is simply tradition. That might seem a minor point, but the 2024 general election saw the second lowest turnout since the introduction of universal suffrage. In that context, we need to pull every lever available to us to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. I am sure that we have all stood on a doorstep at night, unsuccessfully asking someone who is tired after a long day at work and a really long commute, and who needs to put the kids to bed, to go to the end of their street and vote.
The Government should consider international evidence from places such as Australia, where elections are held on weekends, to determine whether a change in the day of the week would increase turnout—in much the same way as they have looked at international examples to conduct a pilot on flexible voting. I welcome that modernisation of the way in which we run our elections. Moving the election day to the weekend would likely have a really positive operational benefit, as it would free up more schools to act as polling stations.
I close by stating my support for the consideration of compulsory participation in elections. When we consider the balance of rights and responsibilities, I do not think it too much to ask people to go along and participate in democracy every few years.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Bill makes important improvements to how our elections are run, but updating the machinery of elections is not the same as renewing our democracy, and we desperately need democratic renewal if we are to restore faith in the system.
The greatest weakness in our system is not administrative; it is structural. It is the first-past-the-post problem. We are running a modern, multi-party Britain on a 19th-century electoral system. First past the post routinely produces majority Governments on minority votes, millions of wasted votes, and safe seats—if they are even a thing any more—in which outcomes are effectively decided before polling day. For the average voter, it means that, because of where they live, their vote may not matter. The result may not reflect how the country voted, and people may feel pushed into voting tactically, rather than honestly.
About 70% of votes make no difference to the result. If someone’s chosen candidate has already won, their vote does not count. If they vote for a losing candidate, their vote just disappears into a void. In Gorton and Denton, tactical voting sites were openly directing voters on how to stop one particular party. Understandable though that desire may be, when people feel that they have to consult a website to figure out how to block someone, rather than simply voting for who they believe in, that is not democracy.
The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) pointed out some of these ideas. If we stick with first past the post in an increasingly fractured multi-party political landscape, we run the very real risk of the next general election results looking much like a random number generator. We know that manufactured majorities weaken legitimacy, disproportionate outcomes fuel cynicism, and large groups of permanently unrepresented voters create fertile ground for anger and extremism. At a time when democratic norms are under pressure globally, that is not a technical flaw; it is a structural vulnerability. We know that there is a better way.
After moving to proportional representation, countries like New Zealand, and indeed Scotland, saw more representative Parliaments, higher engagement among previously marginalised voters, and stronger public confidence that votes actually translate into seats. Comparative research consistently shows higher turnout and stronger feelings of political efficacy under proportional systems. PR is the missing piece of this democratic puzzle. It would reduce tactical voting, strengthen legitimacy, and align Parliament with the country as it actually is. It is not about party advantage; it is about democratic integrity.
So, yes, let us modernise registration, protect candidates and tighten transparency, but we must not pretend that updating the management of elections is the same as strengthening democracy. When millions feel that their vote does not count, when Governments are handed sweeping power on minority support, and when voters feel forced into tactical calculations instead of honest choices, that cannot be said to be a free and fair democracy.
If we really believe in representation of the people, then every vote must carry equal weight. Anything less leaves us with a democracy that functions procedurally but fails morally. Let the Representation of the People Bill ensure that the will of the people is truly represented.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Those of us who are in this Chamber on a Thursday morning know that we sometimes have questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission then, and I say that because in the last Parliament, as an Opposition MP, I was a spokesperson for that Committee. It is the only time in the parliamentary week when Members pose questions to an opposition Member to answer. That is an important point, because it highlights the fact that the Electoral Commission is not answerable to Government, of any colour; rather, it is answerable to Parliament, because it is a regulator like no other. It regulates politics, and it therefore holds a very special status.
I also served in the last Parliament on the Elections Bill Committee, and I saw there what happens when political parties use legislation for political advantage. I am really pleased to be able to say that the Bill before us contains many of the important democratic principles that I have been speaking about for the last 11 years in this House, and I am excited to vote for it on Second Reading this evening.
Among the Bill’s measures is the expansion of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some quite bizarre things said about that so far this evening, some of which were really quite remarkable. The Bill also includes bank cards among the forms of ID that can be used to access voting. For those who were not in the last Parliament to see the Elections Bill go through and become the Elections Act 2022, let me say that time and again, Conservative Ministers told us at the Dispatch Box that if people need ID to collect a parcel at the post office, they should need ID to vote at a polling station; but if we want to collect a parcel at a post office, we can use a bank card for that, so this is completely in line with the arguments made for the introduction of ID, and I would expect the official Opposition to support expanding the relevant ID to include bank cards.
It is important that we come together on upholding confidence in democracy, because confidence in democracy is not very high in this country right now. That is why it is so important that expanding the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds goes hand in hand with working with our colleagues in education to ensure that those young citizens are equipped to vote, and have the necessary support. Already, young citizens in Wales and Scotland have the right to vote, and bringing English and Northern Irish citizens into line makes logical sense.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we are conducting an inquiry on votes at 16 to see what support young people will need to make the most of the vote, when they get it. The most important thing that young people are telling us is that they are concerned that their teachers do not feel confident enough to lead discussions in the classroom around politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support not just our young people, but our teachers, and enable conversations about democracy, the voting process and citizenship?
Cat Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. His APPG sounds very interesting. I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard those points, and I agree with them.
In my remaining time, I want to address the need to protect our democracy from foreign interference. In cleaning up politics, we need to address specific weaknesses identified. There is a very good blog by Professor Alan Renwick at the University College London constitution unit, which I would love to quote from, but my time is quite limited. He highlights that while the Bill introduces stricter eligibility criteria for company donors, there are still huge gaps regarding cryptocurrency and the potential for illicit funds to bypass traditional checks. We should be bold enough to start talking about a donation cap, too. There is no plausible argument against introducing caps on political donations to prevent a small number of wealthy people from exerting disproportionate influence.
The changes made in the last piece of legislation that went through this House on electoral law have left a huge vulnerability. That legislation abolished the 15-year rule we used to have, whereby citizens who had lived outside the UK for 15 years or longer lost the right to vote and to donate to UK politics. When that rule was abolished, there was no way for elections officers in councils up and down the country to verify that people claiming to have lived at an address in another constituency in 1976 actually did so, because those records were not kept past 15 years, as of course there was no point. Now, there are permissible donors to the UK electoral system who claim to have lived in the UK, and we have no way of proving whether they did. That is a huge vulnerability, and I urge those on the Front Bench to look again at that, and at closing that potential back door that we have left open to foreign money interfering in UK politics. We are an outlier in having this rule; in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, those who leave the country lose the right to vote after one year.
I would like to finish by saying that many colleagues have made the case for proportional representation, and this Bill would have been a great opportunity to set up a commission to look at all the different options that would be available to make sure that people feel that their vote counts, and that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is great to speak in a debate that has been so well-tempered, and mostly very thoughtful.
I start by welcoming the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Lib Dems have campaigned on that for many decades, so we are delighted that the Government have reached into our policy locker. I also welcome a lot of the work that will be done under this Bill around donor transparency—the idea of knowing our donor. If we are all being honest, many of us, looking at the rules around the donations that we all seek and accept, think that someone could, if they chose, drive a coach and horses through them. When we buy a house or a car, or some other expensive goods, we often have to prove where the money has come from, so it is about time that we had the same rules when it comes to political donations.
In the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight a couple of areas where we need to go further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Chair of which, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), spoke earlier. The Committee has recently covered a couple of points that I implore the Minister to look into in greater depth. Our long-running inquiry on defending democracy looks at exactly the issues addressed in the Bill, and I would like to talk about two of them.
First, representatives from the National Crime Agency came before the Committee and told us that the law as set out—both the current law and that mooted by the Government in their strategy—does not give the agency sufficient legal grounds to investigate suspicious donations. The Minister can look at the evidence given to the Committee, but there are lots of behaviours that appear to be undemocratic, but after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, they are judged not to meet the threshold for breaking the law, either currently or if the Bill as drafted is enacted, so no further investigations are undertaken. There have been many instances when the National Crime Agency has been looking at something that is illegal and, in the scope of its activities, it has uncovered other activities that look “dodgy”, but it is unable to investigate further. That evidence was set out to the Committee, so the Minister can look at that.
Secondly, there are the issues around cryptocurrency, as other hon. Members have already raised. This is a frontier that is moving incredibly fast. On one hand, cryptocurrency has blockchain, so it is possible to look at the ledger to see where donations have come from. On the other hand, with multiple different cryptocurrencies, the ability to move funds in and out of cryptocurrencies in different jurisdictions on crypto exchanges that are held in jurisdictions with which we do not have good relationships, and the ability to use AI to split large donations into tiny donations, spread them out across hundreds of different crypto exchanges and cryptocurrencies, and then reform them into microdonations, this frontier is moving incredibly fast and we do not understand it. For that reason, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Secretary of State last week asking for a moratorium on cryptocurrencies, and I urge the Government to look into the issue—
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible.
Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.
Peter Swallow
I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a representative from Meta spoke to the Committee just last week. I was very concerned about their answers when probed on the work that needs to be done to protect social media sites from foreign interference. Does he share my concerns that social media companies are not doing enough to tackle this issue on their platforms?
Justin Madders
In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.
There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.
Justin Madders
The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue.
The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month.
Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further.
This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future.
Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot.
It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system.
Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled.
While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics.
I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example.
What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for introducing this Bill. It contains many important areas that I hope the House will agree to on a cross-party basis, whether that is looking at automated forms of registration, lowering the voting age, expanding the list of voter ID, or—most importantly—making sure that we strengthen political finance and how we are all funded. I am proud to declare an interest, in that I was funded by trade unions and my local Labour party—long may that continue.
Many years ago, growing up not too far from here in Brixton, when I saw this place and heard people talk about decisions that impacted us and our communities, it felt like it was a million miles away. If we are honest, we have a system that sometimes feels rigged against us, where decisions are made to us instead of with us.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we make participating in democracy as easy as possible? There is an inextricable link between high levels of deprivation and low levels of registration, and it is really important that we do all we can to make it as easy as possible and remove the barriers.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Many people think that there are too many barriers for them to join the electoral register, when we all know that it takes a matter of minutes. I always say that if the council can send you your council tax bill before you have even finished unpacking, why can they not register you to vote in time?
A healthy and accessible democracy is not just about representation; it is about holding decision makers accountable when they do not deliver on their promises. That is why it is really important that we get this Bill right. We all know that trust in politics is at an all-time low, so at the heart of this must be an acknowledgment that voting is a right, not a privilege. When barriers exist that make it harder for people to vote, we must remove them, and the last Government’s introduction of the voter ID system did just that—it disenfranchised legitimate voters from making their voices heard. We have all knocked on the doors of many people on polling day who did not have the opportunity to register for voter ID before polling day. I have spoken to young people who did not understand why their elderly relative could use their bus pass to vote, but they could not use their Zip card—make it make sense! It is right that we take steps to end personation, but they must be proportionate to the tragedy of legitimate voters being denied their votes, so I wholly support the Government’s measures to widen the scope of voter ID to include digital ID and more forms of ID. I would welcome the Minister outlining some of those changes, and would be grateful to know whether they will include young persons’ ID.
Most importantly, I am happy to see votes for 16-year-olds—I am a long-time, passionate advocate for votes at 16. Conservative Members may be aware that the former chair of the votes at 16 APPG was a former Father of the House. One of the longest-serving and oldest Members of this House was a keen and passionate advocate for votes at 16, so there are some Conservatives who support this measure. It is really important that we consider how to enfranchise young people. Think about all the 16-year-olds in 2010 who saw the coalition Government triple the cost of their tuition fees overnight, who could not vote when they turned 18 in 2012. We must think about how to make sure people who are planning for their future have a keen interest in, and are able to exercise, their right to vote.
Emily Thornberry
One thing about giving votes to youngsters at 16 is that there will be an election in their last two years at school, and politicians will be beating their way to the doors of these schools to go in and speak. Those young people will have an opportunity to learn about what they are voting for and how the structures work in a way that, frankly, their elders often do not know.
Florence Eshalomi
My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. We know that people who start voting at a young age will continue voting through the rest of their life. It is soul-destroying when we knock on the door of someone in their late 50s or 60s, and they say that they have never voted and do not think about voting. If we enfranchise these young people, the figures show that they will continue to vote throughout their adult life. It is important that we enfranchise more people and make sure that there are no barriers.
This legislation is not just about enfranchising people, but about ensuring fair representation. The Electoral Commission shows that as many as 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote, and that has a big impact on young people, people living in private rented accommodation, disabled people and recent home movers. It is important that we look at this issue. I welcome the Government’s proposals on automatic voter and direct voter registration. That is the right way to do it, and it will be important for the Government to outline how they will pilot the scheme. Can the Minister give assurances about when the pilots will happen and if preparation is happening? It is important that any successful pilot is implemented before the general election.
Can the Minister clarify how voter registration will impact different franchises for local and parliamentary elections? For example, will the system deal with qualifying EU nationals? We know that the scheme depends on when someone arrived and settled in the UK, or if someone is from one of the five countries with reciprocal voting rights agreements with the UK. Can the Minister outline how automatic voter registration will capture that?
Time is limited, but I welcome the fact that the Government have finally listened to my calls and those of many other Members in repealing the provision on the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement. In 2000 the previous Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission as a guardian of our democracy, independent not just of that Government but of all future Governments. That independence is fundamental to restoring and keeping trust in our democracy, and it is right that we have no political interference in—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I agree with many of the comments that Members have made, and it is nice to see such communality on idea that we need proportional representation, that we need to get rid of dirty money, and that we need to abolish the possibility of foreign people buying our elections. We see in too many countries across the world that if people have the money, they can buy the votes, and we must not fall into that trap.
I welcome the introduction of votes for 16-year-olds. The children I meet at schools talking politics are engaged and understand what they are doing. I question whether we have sufficient digital voter IDs in the scheme for them to use. Personally, I would like to see voter ID abolished entirely, much as I would like to see the open register abolished entirely. However, the biggest thing I had complaints about after the last election was postal votes, whether it was postal votes too late in getting to people or postal votes being sent back and too late getting to the elections office. There is some movement in the Bill, but it is not enough.
However, we are completely ignoring a whole section of voters: our overseas voters. We heard earlier how the overseas mandate had changed. Now, instead of some 1.4 million overseas voters, we have an estimated 3.4 million overseas voters, and we need to change how they can vote. They are asking for the ability to self-print ballots from the system—that is possible; they do it in the Netherlands—and return them through embassies and consulates. That would enable us to reach these overseas contingents, and we should be encouraging them to take part in our elections, as they are entitled to do. Something like 200,000 registered for the last election, but there are 3.4 million people whom we have disenfranchised. The other big question that we have agreed on and talked through is how we deal with misinformation and disinformation and modern technology, which are distorting our electoral position. We have to make more of that.
On the whole, I would say that this is a reasonable start for a Bill. There is a lot more work to be done, but having heard Members on both sides of the House agreeing on the Bill, I think that together we can make it better, and fit for the 21st century.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this legislation. The proposals for votes at 16, streamlined voter registration and tightened political funding regulations are very welcome, and I applaud the Government for grabbing the bull by the horns. Others will want to address various aspects of the Bill, but for me the most pressing issue relates to political funding.
Hon. Members may be aware that, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I recently led a Westminster Hall debate on foreign political interference in UK politics. In preparing for that debate, I met various experts on political interference. What they told me has stayed with me and impressed upon me the immense scale and severity of the threat that we are facing, and I want to reflect on that aspect of the Bill.
We know that Russian money has already been used to influence and manipulate British politics. We know for a fact that Reform’s former leader in Wales took at least £40,000 in Russian bribes, a crime for which he is now serving a 10-and-a-half-year sentence—I hope he feels that his treachery was worth it. He is not the only Reform politician who has been singing from the Kremlin hymn sheet, but we can only work on the assumption that the others do so as a political choice, rather than as a result of financial inducement.
So we know that Russian money has already infiltrated our politics; what can we do now to prevent future betrayals like that of Mr Gill, and to defend our democracy? The Bill makes great strides in the right direction—restricting political donations from foreign companies is a hugely positive step, for example—but when malign actors want to subvert our democracy covertly, they will continue to do so, or will attempt to do so, and we must therefore be forceful in defending ourselves against all covert illegal donations.
One way for malign actors to dodge our defences is to donate to political parties using cryptocurrencies. The experts I have spoken with tell me that cryptocurrencies pose a new threat to our democracy, an opportunity for hostile states to bypass the laws that protect us and our political system from meddling. Only one of the parties represented in this place today accepts crypto donations. No prizes for guessing which one: yes, it is the same party once represented by Nathan Gill; the same party whose leader thinks that the west provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and regards Putin as the world leader he most admires. However, it is not just political parties that influence and shape our politics; so do think-tanks, and experts also suspect that Russian money is being used to fund think-tank activity in the United Kingdom.
The Government are taking a huge step in the right direction, and I will be proud to walk through the Aye Lobby tonight in support of the Bill. The threat facing us from hostile states is extremely serious, and it is critical that the Government act with strength to ensure that that influence is no longer there.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The central point of the Bill is, of course, the franchising of 16 and 17-year-olds. I will not deal with that issue extensively, although I must say that I thought the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) essentially demolished the argument for votes for children. However, I want to look at it in a slightly different context.
Whether someone is 16 or 86, the whole idea of universal suffrage is that people have the opportunity, as equals, to elect those who make their laws, whether in a council, in this Parliament, or in some other institution. That is the fundamental point. Indeed, the secret is in the title: Representation of the People—representation in the election of those who then make our laws. But here is the problem. If the Bill is passed and you are a 16-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. If you are an 86-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. That is because we are in the absurd position that in part of this United Kingdom—which boasts of universal suffrage, which boasts of equal rights across this United Kingdom—in not one area but in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are not made by those whom we elect; they are made by those in a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament, elected by the electorates of 27 other countries.
Liam Conlon
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions Europe. Another key component of this Bill is transparency in funding, and he will know that the Constitutional Research Council donated nearly half a million pounds to the Vote Leave campaign in Northern Ireland—a company that does not disclose its accounts or who funds it. This Bill will correct that. Does he agree that is a fantastic move forward?
Jim Allister
Yes, transparency in funding is important, and I will say something about that if I have time, but there is a more fundamental issue. Whatever their age, the hon. Member’s constituents, once they are given the vote, have a right to elect those who make their laws. My constituents and I do not have the right to elect those who make our laws in my part of the United Kingdom, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me why it is either democratic or right that we should have universal suffrage on the basis of representation of the people, but that we should extract and remove from the people of Northern Ireland that fundamental right in 300 areas of law. That is perverse. It is wrong. The Secretary of State, in introducing this debate, said that this Government “will tackle foreign interference head-on”. Well, let them start by removing the foreign interference in making the laws in my part of the United Kingdom. That would be a very good starting point.
Finally, I want to make a point about foreign donations. This House may know that in Northern Ireland we have a party by the name of Sinn Féin, which has run a coach and horses through every regulation that has ever been made about foreign donations. Because the party operates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it plays the rules of one against another. In a recent year it received £2 million from the United States, so what does it do? It filters the money through whichever country’s laws allow it to be most easily filtered, and then moves it north-south or south-north, as suits the party’s purposes. This Bill does not yet go far enough. I want to see it tighten those loopholes and make sure that travesty cannot continue.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
As a solicitor who previously advised in this area, I am grateful to be able to contribute to tonight’s Second Reading debate. I welcome much in this Bill, including automatic voter registration; honouring our manifesto commitment to extend the vote in UK-wide elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, following in the footsteps of Wales; and rectifying some of the discriminatory impacts of the Conservatives’ Elections Act 2022, a piece of legislation that in many respects was a solution in search of a problem.
In the short time I have tonight, I want to focus on a theme that I have regularly spoken about: the threat to our democracy from foreign interference by both state and non-state actors, and the steps that we must take to cement our democracy from those malign forces. As has been said, these are not theoretical risks. We need only look at the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, who was previously in the UK Independence party and the Brexit party: Nathan Gill, who is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for eight counts of bribery. It is shameful that he took a minimum of £40,000 in bribes to make speeches in the European Parliament. He was meant to be representing Wales but instead did the Kremlin’s bidding.
I welcome the Government’s setting up of the Philip Rycroft review, and I trust that the resulting recommendations will be included in the Bill as it progresses through this place. In particular, I am clear that we should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. To my mind, there is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means, unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity.
I welcome the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was elaborated on by the Secretary of State, and the enhancing of its powers to provide clear deterrents against lawbreaking. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that the Government will ensure that the Electoral Commission has all the necessary resources it needs to do its job effectively and efficiently.
Improved co-operation between the Electoral Commission, the intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I have previously suggested to the Security Minister and I suggest again to the Minister that the Government should consider whether the recently announced policing reforms, most notably in setting up a national police service, may be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime.
Finally, we must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, as has been mentioned, and treat them as the core national security threat that they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police need the resources to deal with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections. I would be grateful if the Government synchronised that with other ongoing Government reviews to ensure that this Bill is as robust as it needs to be to cement our democracy.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it.
Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Is not the real fear that young people are now able, through social media and other forums, to identify which political personality is telling the truth and which one is saying what is false, and the Conservatives are quite concerned that they will lose even more power?
Mr Bedford
If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up.
Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country.
Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further.
To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have learned a great deal this evening, not least that, when we are debating legislation, Members should put in their name earlier than I clearly did.
I have the great honour of representing the people of Finsbury, and there is a great line of fantastic Members of Parliament before me, such as Chris Smith. Before that, there was Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, who in 1842 delivered to Parliament the Chartist petition with 3.3 million signatories, or one third of the adult population. We had huge demonstrations in Spa fields and Copenhagen fields to try to get the vote—unfortunately, just for men—but, nevertheless, that is how seriously we take democracy in Islington South and Finsbury.
However, 184 years later, I worry that I may be the MP who oversees the death of our democracy, and the reason I am so concerned—profoundly so—is foreign interference in our democracies. The Foreign Affairs Committee started looking at other countries—we thought this was just about other countries—and we visited many other places. I must tell hon. Members that the things we saw in Romania and Moldova would make their hair stand on end. However, this is not just in countries a long way away on the border with Russia, but in many others. I have spoken to people in Germany and France, and it is quite clear that there is an attempt to influence our democracies, and we are complacent—far too complacent.
We are very worried about that in the Foreign Affairs Committee, so we have taken the unusual step of asking domestic Ministers what they are doing about it. We are seeing patterns of behaviour and we are concerned that it is now happening in this country. It could blow up very quickly, not least in the next elections in May. The last thing we want is for those influencers to be there and then for us to somehow or other try to persuade the public, “Actually, you were unduly influenced.” Nobody will want to admit it once it has happened. We need to ensure we protect ourselves.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have been in touch with me in recent months concerned about the impact of foreign money and foreign influence on our elections, particularly after the recent conviction of the former leader of Reform UK Wales for taking Russian bribes. I am sure those concerns will be shared by my right hon. Friend’s constituents. Will she join me in welcoming the measures in the Bill that will strengthen the rules on political donations, in particular the requirement that donations from companies must come from money made in the UK, rather than abroad?
Emily Thornberry
Well, the penny does seem have dropped—or the crypto-coin has dropped—but the Bill is not sufficient. That is why the Rycroft review is really important. It will come out at the end of the month and I ask the Minister to undertake to publish it when it is produced, because we are on a very tight timetable. The programme motion suggests that the Bill will leave the elected House on 23 April, so if there are changes to be made, they will be made by the unelected House of Lords, which is unfortunate. I ask business managers to consider that.
Currently, there are seven Departments dealing with disinformation. The test I have is the 1,300 bots from a Scottish background—they seem very interested in Scottish nationalism in Iran. I have been asking various Ministers to deal with them. Who is taking them down? Who is responsible for taking them down? Of the seven different Departments, who is doing that? Those bots are still there—although they may now have gone because of the recent bombing. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that that is an attempt at foreign influence in our democracy and I am very concerned about it. I asked the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about it. He said he would look into it. As a result, I got three different letters from three different Departments all telling me three different things. We must consider this matter and ensure we tackle it properly. The Foreign Affairs Committee is producing an excellent report this month. I urge Ministers to read it, because it will contain recommendations which, unfortunately, I cannot go into today.
Finally, why are we allowing cryptocurrency into our democracy? Who wants to use cryptocurrency? Why can we not just use good old-fashioned cash, cheques and bank transfers like anybody else? Why do they need cryptocurrency? Because they want to cover up. It is the Russian currency of choice when it wants to bribe people. We know that from other countries and we know the way in which it is used. Just say no.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She rightly reminded the House about the role of the Chartists in Islington South. I remind her and the rest of the House about the role of Mary Wollstonecraft in the north of the borough, and of course the fact that “The Rights of Man” was written in her constituency at the Angel. Our borough has made a massive contribution to radical thought and radical development.
This debate should be much longer and wider, because we need to look at wider issues of democracy in our society. We have an elected House of Commons. We have an unelected House of Lords. We obviously have an unelected Head of State. We have a massive disparity in regional influences on political decision making. We do not really have regional government. We have mayors and a local government system that is essentially dependent on central government. We are not a fully democratic society by any manner of means. Indeed, this House of Commons is really meeting on sufferance of the Government. Its agenda is basically set by the Government. It is not an independent chamber of power over the Government; it is one that tries to hold the Government to account—there is a big difference. So we need to think a bit more about how our democracy could develop. Perhaps a good idea would be a commission on democracy, where there could be wide-ranging thoughts on democracy in our society.
The Bill contains a number of issues that I want to refer to quickly. I say that as a former agent in many elections, and as a parliamentary candidate in many more after that. The question of the funding of elections comes up all the time. Massive amounts of business money flows into politics both at election time and between elections, funding parties, so-called political interest groups and so on. We need to get a grip on this. Our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, and it is getting worse and worse with the levels of political influence and money that goes with it.
There is also the question of the power of the media between and within elections. We need to extend broadcasting rules into print media during elections. As others have said, we need to look very seriously at the damaging interests of social media and the algorithms that go with it, which direct political views. It is almost impossible to find out how much money has been spent on social media campaigning.
Lastly, I will turn to the right to vote. I have raised the question of homeless people having the right to vote; if we had a universal registration system, it would be much easier to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is able to do so. While I absolutely support votes at 16, I also think we should extend votes beyond just Irish nationals to those who are legally resident in this country and have a stake in the future of this country, and should be able to vote accordingly.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I, too, want to welcome the Bill; I think it has a lot of good measures. However, whether it becomes the watershed Bill that I think it could be depends on whether much of the debate we have heard tonight gets translated into successful amendments over the next couple of weeks.
We all have an ideal of democracy in this House, but we all know that democracy, too, is a system, and systems can be gamed, corrupted and undermined, not merely by force of arms, but by force of money: foreign money; dark money; money that is faceless, but has an agenda. That is the situation we have in this country today because we have allowed the activities of shell companies, alka-seltzer companies and unincorporated associations, with about £1 in every £10 coming into political parties now from some kind of dark source. All of this is overseen by a National Crime Agency without the resources to do the job and an Electoral Commission without the powers to do the job.
There are five changes that need to be made to the text of the Bill before us tonight. The first, as many have said, is on media systems. It is ridiculous that I can set up a trust in Dubai that is owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and chuck tens of millions of pounds into a British TV station, which can then go on to pay politicians in this House. There are no rules and balances on that, which is ridiculous and needs to end.
Secondly, as many people have said, we need to ban cryptocurrency. We know that cryptocurrency is the vehicle of choice for the Russian intelligence services moving money into the bank accounts of western proxies. For a long time, the Russian intelligence services have had a strategy of what we might call “poodles on rubles”. Right now, we know they are moving about $30 million a year. We have to ensure that what has happened in Moldova does not happen in countries like ours. Banning cryptocurrency altogether—until, perhaps, one day in the future, the Electoral Commission has the power to police it—might be a good idea.
Thirdly, we have to ensure that only profits earned from British companies can be used for electoral donations. It is ridiculous that an individual like Christopher Harborne can take $70 million in Tether tokens before then making about £23 million-worth of donations into British political parties, with none of us in this House having any idea where that money has come from.
Fourthly, we need to ensure that the powers of the Electoral Commission have been transformed so that it has the power to initiate investigations before it has all the evidence it needs. At the moment, it needs to initiate an investigation before it can get the evidence, which is very difficult to do.
Finally, we need to ensure that there is a proper gateway to allow the Electoral Commission to share information with the National Crime Agency.
Our enemies are undermining us now not just by dropping bombs through the ceiling, but by trying to destroy our foundations. Regulating political finance is one of the ways we can stop that now.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Bill presents a vital opportunity to pave a new way for politics —a politics that is good, honest and free from foreign interference.
I welcome many of the Government’s proposed changes, but the Bill does not go far enough. Loopholes can still be exploited, with foreign billionaires simply needing someone in the middle willing to co-operate and act as the middle man before a donation reaches the party’s pockets. Using company revenue rather than profit to determine eligibility for political donations is also too weak a safeguard against foreign money. Furthermore, the issue of cryptocurrencies has also not been addressed in this legislation, as many Members have said this evening.
International IDEA reports that 49% of countries worldwide place some kind of cap on donations to political parties. Labour must do what is right and use this Bill to finally cap donations to political parties. Free and fair elections are central to our democracy, so I am pleased that the Minister listened to my concerns when I met her last week, and the strategy and policy statement will now be withdrawn. This will ensure the independence of the Electoral Commission.
There is also the growing issue of disinformation, which this legislation fails to address. With the welcome change in voting age, even more of our electorate must now wade through online content and determine what is real and what is false. It is therefore imperative that we do not go into another election without robust, updated measures to tackle disinformation. As we consider voters, I am pleased to see changes to move the postal vote application deadline to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, and I hope that this helps our overseas electorate.
Finally, this Bill makes progress, but it cannot be the end of the road for electoral reform.
Caroline Voaden
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our electoral system fractures into a multi-party system—we have traditionally had a system involving two parties in this country—there is a massive missed opportunity to use the Bill to introduce a commission that could bring forward a proportional voting system? That would ensure that we never again had a Government who won 62% of seats with only 34% of the vote.
Helen Maguire
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that at recent Labour conferences, many Labour members brought up the same point.
This House must strive for a system that is bold and ambitious, and that puts everyday people at the heart of British politics. The legislation needs to go further to deliver for our constituents.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Last summer, along with the other North Lanarkshire MPs, I participated in North Lanarkshire council’s school placement scheme. Two young people, Scott and Shanna, joined my office. At the time, they were 17 and 16 respectively. They began by doing a six-week summer placement, but they now regularly contribute to our team. Even in a relatively young constituency office, they bring a fresh perspective. They ask different questions and challenge assumptions, and they do so thoughtfully and responsibly. I find it particularly abhorrent that they contribute so much to the work of my office and yet are not deemed important or skilled enough to vote.
We talked at length about this Bill and why it was so important. When I set about the task of writing this speech, we were thinking about why the voting age should be 16, rather than 17, 15 or 18. As I listened to the speeches of Conservative Members, I was reminded that at 16, someone can leave school if they want. They can work and can get a national insurance number. They pay tax if they earn enough, and they pay national insurance if they earn above the threshold. They pay into a state pension and the pot builds, but they might never see any of it if they do not live to reach the retirement age. They are expected to contribute to society, but are told that they cannot have a say in how that society is governed. This has been an important issue for me from the beginning.
It is clear that these young people are mature enough to vote—certainly no less mature than many who are 18, and we have never queried votes at that age. We all have talked about how important it is to engage with schools. We have also talked about the fact that the change has already happened in both Scotland and Wales, and the world has not fallen in. The other point that I want to raise is how we will make sure that we get young people who are leaving care on to the electoral register. That is important.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I welcome the Bill, but it needs to be improved to effectively strengthen and defend our democracy. First, it is essential that we replace our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system with one that is fair and proportional. Independent analysis found that the 2024 general election was the most disproportional in modern times. The fact that millions of votes did not translate into representation fuels dangerous disillusion.
Secondly, on money, last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that would have put a cap on political donations and addressed donations made by foreign nationals through companies. It should be the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires, oligarchs or corporate interests, who decide our future in elections and referenda. Legislating for caps and stronger checks would align us with comparable democracies and would close the door on undue influence. We should also ban cryptocurrency donations; I look forward to the findings of the Rycroft review.
If this Bill is about representation, it must also be about the conditions in which voters form their views. Elections cannot be fair if voters cannot find and trust accurate information. Organisations such as Full Fact have proposed targeted measures to tackle the spread of misinformation, including stronger rules on political deepfakes, the establishment of a comprehensive public library of digital political adverts, statutory regulation of non-broadcast political advertising for honesty and accuracy, and a protocol for electoral information incidents, so that voters are alerted to serious interference or disinformation.
I am delighted to see the proposal for votes at 16. I would just add that enfranchisement must be accompanied by political and digital education programmes.
On overseas voters, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard evidence that postal ballots sometimes arrive too late to be returned. The Bill is an opportunity to pilot secure solutions, such as secure downloadable ballots, and embassy or consulate returns via diplomatic bags, and I urge the Government to look into the benefits of overseas constituencies.
People must be able to trust that their vote and voice matter. Let us use this Bill to ensure that it is the people of this country, not foreign malign actors, billionaires or algorithms, who decide our future at the ballot box.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says.
I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system.
In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs.
In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
There is much that is positive in the Bill. I want to touch briefly on one point that we have not discussed much so far, which is strengthening protections for staff who work on elections. They are critical to the safe and transparent delivery of our democracy. As hon. Members have said, what is missing is something that would enable a fundamental change that restored faith and fresh thinking to our politics: a change to the voting system, to make it more proportional. One party, regardless of how good or bad it is, cannot hope to represent the huge range of ideas and opinions in our society effectively. This is not Lib Dem self-interest speaking, because in 2024 we finally achieved an outcome in seats under first past the post that was comparable to our vote share.
I would like proportional representation for many reasons. I would like it for the tactical voters whom I told in 2024 that I would campaign for a system in which they did not have to feel forced to vote for me. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be persuaded by my opinion, but perhaps he will be by an open letter about the Bill, written by over 50 leading academics, including Professors Tim Bale, Rob Ford and Vernon Bogdanor, which said:
“The collision of a multi-party electorate with a voting system designed for just two parties is creating new risks for Britain. If the government wishes…to protect and enhance the integrity of British democracy…it would be wise to engage with these risks.”
Many Labour Members agree with that. A majority of the 158 members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are Labour Members. A record 60% of the public support proportional representation, up from 52% in 2023, which was itself a record at the time.
While votes at 16 is to be welcomed, I note that widespread research, including from the respected More in Common firm, shows that 78% of the voting public are disillusioned with politics. Labour’s 2023 national policy paper acknowledged that widespread alienation and distrust among voters. Alas, the Bill will not address that very worrying situation.
The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, cited the German and Dutch good practice mirrored in aspects of the Bill. It is good that he did so. I hope that he will study further German and Dutch good practice; their electoral systems tend to deliver higher turnouts than ours, in a much more proportional manner. I appreciate that that is a big ask. If he wishes to prevent those 16 and 17-year-olds who will soon be able to vote from falling into the same democratic despair felt by many of us, I hope that he will start by supporting the call from the APPG for fair elections for a national commission on electoral reform.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to speak, even if it is briefly, in the debate. Young people have often felt left out of discussions and decisions about their future, and have felt that their voices do not matter, so I welcome the steps that the Bill will take to standardise the vote age across all elections. In Scotland, the age for voting in a general election has been out of step with the age for voting in Holyrood and council elections since 2016.
While I welcome the steps towards increasing participation and accessibility, we must do more to expand representation. The last general election marked the first point in our history at which enough female MPs had ever been elected to fill the Chamber. There have been 695 female MPs since 1918; I am the 673rd. However, we have missed an opportunity. As we heard, section 106 of the Equality Act is still to be commenced. I know that the Government are committed to commencing it. When commenced, section 106 will improve transparency, accountability and consistency in how parties collect and publish candidate diversity data. By bringing greater transparency, that section will allow nominations across parties to be analysed consistently and transparently, putting a spotlight on the selection of women candidates and highlighting any disparities. Commencement is supported by Centenary Action, 50:50 Parliament, the Electoral Reform Society and Elect Her to ensure that Chambers across the country better reflect the communities that we all serve. Ahead of the centenary of women’s suffrage in 2028, I ask the Minister to reiterate that commitment today and to consider whether section 106 should be reflected in this Bill in the light of the commendable aim of strengthening our democracy.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Although I fear that this Bill may be remembered as a Bill of missed opportunities, I want to start with the substantial positives that I see in it. For decades, the Liberal Democrats have fought—sometimes alone, sometimes against the odds—for votes at 16. It is a progressive, pragmatic move whose time has come, and I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I hope it will also be accompanied by stronger elements of the curriculum in democratic and civic education to support these measures, and I look forward to the Government’s proposals.
Automatic voter registration is also really important. Nearly 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote in this country. No matter how we look at it, that is just wrong and needs to be addressed, so I strongly welcome that measure too. I would also like to talk about protections not just for candidates, but for hard-working council staff. I have previously led a district council, and I have seen up close not only the dedication and hard work of the staff in our council, but the risks they are exposed to in an increasingly polarised environment. It is fantastic that they have been included in this Bill as well.
These provisions are genuinely welcome, but let me be blunt: this Bill does not go far enough. The truth, as every person in this country knows, is that our democracy is experiencing a crisis of public confidence, and we need real transformation. The measures on “know your donor” are steps in the right direction. Closing the loopholes for overseas donors and preventing the influence of people such as Musk and the Russian oligarchs matter. We cannot allow foreign money to buy British democracy, but the Bill does not go far enough in this regard. We need a donations cap—a hard limit on what any individual or company can give to political parties. Right now, billionaires can write cheques that dwarf the modest contributions from ordinary working people.
Cryptocurrency has been mentioned a number of times this evening, but the Bill is silent on it. While other countries wake up to the risks of crypto and its opacity, we are leaving the door wide open for cryptocurrency to become the new dark money. We need an explicit ban on cryptocurrency donations. Donations are only part of the picture, however. We still have first past the post—a voting system so distorted that it allows Governments with 36% of the vote to govern alone for up to five years. We see millions of votes cast that elect no one, yet the Government have proposed no reforms to introduce proportional representation, a system where every vote counts equally and every community gets a representative that reflects them.
Democracy may seem more fragile than it has felt in a generation, but it is by no means dead. It is a rare thing and it must be fought for, renewed and expanded with every generation. As a Liberal Democrat, I will not stop fighting for it until we have a system that gives every elector a real voice and kicks dirty money out of our politics.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
There is a lot to welcome in this legislation that we are debating this evening. In my view, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is a statement of confidence in the next generation and a practical step towards a more inclusive democracy. As I have told my constituents, my support for 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote stems less from their being determined in adult, which has been contested this evening, and more from the need to balance our political debate. With a shrinking birth rate and an ageing population, the electorate are set to become more imbalanced over the coming years, so there is a practical reason for making this change.
I also welcome the Bill’s provisions to improve voter registration and to protect candidates and electoral staff from intimidation and abuse. On voter registration, I particularly encourage Ministers to take seriously the work of the Migrant Democracy Project. I believe we should use this opportunity to extend the franchise to more adult residents, not just younger ones, given that there are 4 million people in this country who cannot vote in a general election at the moment. I also note the Bill’s intention to strengthen transparency and security around political donations. As has been discussed extensively, those are vital changes.
As many colleagues have said, there is something important missing if we genuinely want this Bill to create a fair, secure and inclusive democracy. That is, of course, the decision to not look again at the central mechanism that decides who sits in this House. Under first past the post, millions of people can do everything that is asked of them—they register, turn out and vote in good faith—but still end up without meaningful representation and a sense that their voice truly matters. It is arguably getting worse. In only the past week, many of us have been out on the doorstep at the by-election, and I spoke to many people who were actively debating how to stop a particular party and were using their vote to achieve that particular end, rather than voting for something positive and something that reflected their views and their policy aspirations. Surely we can do better than fighting elections on the basis of the best worst option, which is how so many people see it.
I want to put on the record my support for the work of the APPG for fair elections and to urge Ministers to genuinely look at the call for some form of a national commission on electoral reform, so that modern Britain genuinely considers how we can ensure that every vote counts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy.
I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system. I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted.
While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news. I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned.
I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so.
Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process. That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered.
Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right. This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.
Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.
Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.
The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.
A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.
Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.
We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.
On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.
Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.
Kevin Bonavia
Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]
David Simmonds
I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.
In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity, and one that we need to protect and uphold. The Bill marks a landmark moment in that process. I welcome the strength of feeling expressed by all Members today about the importance of upholding democratic practice, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate as the Minister with responsibility for democracy.
I will come to the points made in the debate shortly, but first I want to address the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in his reasoned amendment. There is one specific point that I want to address. Opposition Members have tried to suggest that there was no proper engagement with political parties, but I do not accept that. Government officials have engaged in discussions with the political parties represented on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary parties panel on the technical aspects of the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that party administrators have invested in these discussions. My predecessor wrote to shadow spokespeople across the House upon publication of the Government’s strategy for elections. They were invited to meet then, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and I have tried again on introduction of the Bill. The Conservatives have not taken up our offer to meet on either occasion. However, I look forward to their engagement through the Bill’s progress.
Before I address the points raised during the debate, I want to remind hon. Members what the Bill seeks to do. This is a bold move to improve democracy in the UK through extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds at all UK elections, and through expanding the list of ID acceptable at polling stations to allow as many of those who are eligible to vote to do so easily.
The Bill seeks to improve and protect our electoral systems in this modern era through improving voter registration, moving towards a more automated system that makes it easier and simpler for people who are eligible to register to vote, building a fuller and fairer democracy in the UK.
The Bill will increase participation in democracy for all, engaging young people from an earlier age. It will also protect against those who seek to cause harm and weaken our democratic system. It also delivers on other manifesto commitments to improve and protect our electoral systems by strengthening rules on political donations, and by ensuring that political imprint rules are as comprehensive as possible.
As the regulator, the Electoral Commission plays an incredibly important role in upholding public confidence in free and fair elections, which is why we are expanding its role and powers. That will ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.
The proposed changes to our political finance framework will safeguard against foreign interference, while ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns. The current system provides numerous opportunities for corrupt donations and manipulation to influence our elections, whether through foreign donations through shell companies or large sum donations with origins left unchecked. That status quo cannot continue. These measures have been developed to block malicious interference and to ensure the safety of democracy.
The Bill also updates electoral conduct and registration rules, making processes smoother for those running elections, with measures being informed by the strategic review of electoral registration and conduct developed in partnership with the electoral sector. Over recent years, we have also seen growth in harassment and in the intimidation of candidates, campaigners and, as Members have said, electoral staff. That is a direct threat to our democracy. Measures in the Bill move to protect all those who participate in upholding and delivering our democracy by treating such harassment and intimidation as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of offenders, while also building on existing legislation to disqualify such offenders from standing at future elections.
Let me turn to the points raised during the debate. I thank Members from across the House who have supported the measure on votes at 16, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue of teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.
I am not quite sure where the fears of the shadow Secretary of State come from on auto-enrolment, but I reassure Members that it is our intention to pilot these measures very carefully indeed to ensure that the robustness and integrity of our elections and our electoral register are maintained. The piloting measures that we take will be used carefully and proportionately.
Harassment and intimidation are a really serious issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), my friend and predecessor, who has endured significant harassment and intimidation. That is completely unwarranted.
It will be disappointing to some Members across the House that the voting system will not be changing as a result of this legislation. However, we take extremely seriously the issue of foreign interference, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). I refer Members to the independent review being conducted by Philip Rycroft, which will report this month. It is the Government’s intention to leave space for us to respond to recommendations that come out of that review as effectively as possible. That is a really serious issue that we need to address.
Similarly, misinformation and disinformation were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There are already measures in the Online Safety Act that require the removal of illegal content, but this issue needs to be addressed more forcefully.
Flexible voting pilots were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I draw her attention, and that of all Members, to the written ministerial statement issued today, which sets out the pilots that we look forward to seeing innovate in ways in which electors can address the vote.
I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is a crossover Bill. The Committee stage will finish towards the end of April, but further stages will cross over into the next Session of Parliament.
On the measure surrounding bank cards, which was raised by the shadow Minister, I reassure him that only UK-registered bank cards will be used. We want to do this because we accept that the vast majority of electors have them, including those of the ages of 16 and 17. Our financial system and the issuing of bank cards is one of the most robust in the country, and we will measure that.
Democracies across the world are at an inflection point. We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I urge all Members to step forward and embrace this opportunity. We must all choose openness and empowerment and to work hard to bring trust back into the system. By doing so, we close our system to those who would undermine that trust, stifle debate and twist our democracy for their own ends. This Bill is the next step in the evolution of our democracy, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 12 and 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Consumer Protection
That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.
That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Over this Labour Government’s term in office so far, we have spent a lot of time discussing and highlighting the evils of child abuse and the exploitation of women and girls, and there has been a lot of progress. The audit from Baroness Casey on grooming gangs made several recommendations that we have already put into motion; the reforms that we are making to taxi licensing and safety through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill are a key example.
However, I want to open today’s debate by talking about an issue that I have previously discussed with the Minister: the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, which is one of the key recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I approach this issue as someone who grew up in a small religious organisation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which IICSA recognised as having a serious problem with child sexual abuse. Last June, I stood here and highlighted my concerns that the Government’s proposals to introduce mandatory reporting in the Crime and Policing Bill have been significantly watered down from IICSA’s recommendations. I raised three issues: first, a lack of proper sanctions for non-compliance; secondly, the fact that the duty proposed applies only when someone receives a direct disclosure or witnesses abuse happening, and not when they have strong reasons to suspect it; and thirdly, loopholes in who is included; under the drafting, it is religious leaders who have “unsupervised” contact with children who come under the duty to report. I set out why that would allow most lay religious leaders to escape the duty, despite their holding enormous power and influence over their followers, using the particular example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
To begin with, I do have some good news. Just a few hours ago, the House of Lords approved a Government amendment to remove the word “unsupervised” from that definition of religious leaders. I want to thank the Minister, as well as her Lords counterpart, Lord Hanson, for listening to my lobbying on that front. That small change could make a real difference in protecting children from abuse in small religious organisations, but it will make the most difference only if we fix the other two issues, on which there has not been as much progress. I will not rehash my arguments in detail about why they are so critical.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He spoke on this issue some time ago, and made a very good case. I support him in the case that he is putting forward, and I want to give him an illustration. A 2013 report by the Northern Ireland Assembly revealed that small, unaffiliated groups, including those that use church or faith premises, had gaps in child protection and safeguarding, and might not be subject to credential checks. Does he agree with me—I believe he does—that legislation and guidance must be brought up to date and strengthened to ensure that smaller organisations do not fall through the gaps when it comes to ensuring proper safeguarding, so that we can increase protections for all children across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? He deserves to be congratulated on what he is doing tonight.
Sam Carling
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It sounds like really helpful evidence and a really good example, and I will certainly go away and have a look at it.
I will not rehash the arguments I made in June, but I will say that IICSA was clear, having examined the issue in huge depth over many years, that both strong sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion were essential to create a duty that works, and its views have not changed. On Friday, two of the four IICSA panel members, Sir Malcolm Evans and Ivor Frank, wrote to the Home Secretary, pressing for the duty in the Crime and Policing Bill to be strengthened, so that it complies with their original recommendations.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I believe that Alexis Jay told the Home Affairs Committee that this mandatory reporting was one of the most important recommendations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we deliver on the recommendation in full, and do not allow any leeway when there is reasonable evidence that abuse may be occurring, which would allow people to get away with not reporting that suspicion?
Sam Carling
I am really grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend, and I absolutely agree with her. It is really important that we listen to IICSA, which spent many years on this, and deliver what it recommended. When it comes to religious organisations in which there is a strong culture of distrusting secular authorities, there is no other way to make them do the right thing. I again highlight the work of the Australian royal commission, which found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that country had documented 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse and reported not even one to the police—not one. That is not an accident; it is a systemic cover-up on a catastrophic level.
The Government’s case for not fully complying with IICSA seems to rest on two arguments: first, that strong sanctions for a failure to report child sexual abuse would create a chilling effect, which would stop people wanting to go into professions that work with children; and, secondly, that widening the duty to include reasonable suspicion would produce a flood of reports that would overwhelm our system. The Government have written to me to say that their position on these issues is supported by expert stakeholders, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I think it takes an average of 26 years for children to disclose that they were victims of sexual abuse, so it is absolutely critical that the provision on the reasonable suspicion of abuse is included in the Bill, as well as the trigger for the duty to report. In small, high-demand religious organisations, cultural norms prevent open discussion of sexual harm and discourage mandatory reporting. That needs to be overturned.
Sam Carling
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has done a lot of work on this matter, in particular on making sure that the seal of confession is not exempted from mandatory reporting. I very much appreciate her work on that, which is really important. She says—I am sure that she has the correct figure—that it takes on average 26 years for someone, having been a victim, to report child sexual abuse. That goes to show that we cannot have a duty that relies on that reporting. We must ensure that people are empowered and will report their reasonable suspicion.
I met all the stakeholders I have just cited and many more, and not all back the Government position. The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence for non-compliance are not enough. It does not want sanctions that could lead to a criminal record, but very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines, so I would argue that there is ample space for a well-thought-through compromise here. I have drafted an exemplar amendment, showing how civil sanctions could work. It is based on the Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled the amendment in the Lords, for debate earlier today.
Similarly, the NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger. That raises concerns about why the Home Office said to me that the NSPCC did not hold that position, and used that point to bolster the Government position. Some other stakeholders cited as agreeing with the Government have also expressed a much more nuanced position to me, accepting that the position is finely balanced, and that their concerns could be ameliorated through effective training—there have been amendments on that previously.
On these issues, the international evidence is so clear. Many countries with mandatory reporting have criminal sanctions, including a significant majority of US states, France, Australia, Croatia and Canada.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On reasonable suspicion, does he agree with me that in any closed community, including religious organisations, it is a characteristic of abuse that people have suspicions, but often nobody feels able to speak up? Bringing reasonable suspicion into the definition for mandatory reporting, and putting that on the statute book, is a really important safeguard in that context. It creates an additional duty that could allow us to deal with circumstances that are pretty common.
Sam Carling
I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In the debate in the House of Lords earlier today, Baroness Grey-Thompson gave a good example from when she was a younger athlete of sports coaches’ behaviour that she had observed. She believes that if there had been a duty relating to reasonable suspicion, it could have helped in dealing with some of that.
In none of the countries I named earlier has the feared chilling effect arisen, despite strong sanctions for failure to report. Nevertheless, as I have set out, firm civil sanctions would be a fair compromise, supported by virtually all stakeholders. On the concerns about floods of reports, we just have to look at the international evidence. Those floods just do not happen. Extensive research by Professor Ben Mathews in Western Australia, which has both criminal sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion, found that while there was an increase, the number of substantiated investigations—those with a finding of abuse—doubled, from an annual mean of 160 in the pre-law period to 327 in the post-law period. That indicates that twice as many sexually abused children were being identified. Compare that to Wales, where IICSA was told that the introduction of a weaker duty in 2016 had
“not led to a substantive change in practice”.
At this point, I want to highlight that the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation all clearly want the Government to criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. Clause 79 of the Bill criminalises stopping a mandated reporter from carrying out their duty to report. That is welcome, but it needs to be broader. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other small religious groups, there is ample evidence that religious leaders regularly stop victims or their parents reporting abuse to police because it will “bring reproach on God’s name”. As parents and victims will not be mandated reporters, that will remain completely legal. Once again, I urge the Government to close these loopholes.
The Government’s own impact assessment indicates that the duty will increase the number of child sexual offences recorded by police by just 0.3%. Vulnerable children need us to create a much stronger duty to report this abuse, as IICSA recommended. By doing so, we can shine much-needed light on safeguarding failings in small religious groups and others, and protect so many children.
I will now move on to discuss other safeguarding issues in small religious groups, beginning with shunning. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this has long been called “disfellowshipping”. When someone commits a serious sin in the eyes of the religion, their believing family and friends are ordered to shut them off entirely and treat them as though they are dead.
The same applies when someone voluntarily leaves. The Australian royal commission looked at this too, through the lens of the position in which it places victims of abuse, saying:
“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”
It happens all the time. The culture of non-reporting and forgiveness for child abusers leads to them remaining at large. Victims are silenced, told that their abusers have been forgiven by God; many leave, and then it is they who lose their entire families. It is victim blaming taken to extremes.
Let us consider those removed involuntarily for apparent “grave sins”. What might constitute a grave sin? Well, how about being gay? Religious teachings regularly equate homosexuality with paedophilia—they are lumped together. Let me read a brief quote from the Jehovah’s Witness “Awake!” magazine, a key publication intended to teach believers:
“True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality… but…a Christian cannot excuse immoral behaviour by saying he was ‘born that way.’ Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for children is ‘innate’. But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is perverted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex.”
Children growing up in that religion are subjected to this bile constantly. I would know—I was one of them. But at least I survived. Lots do not; people like Stephen, the nephew of one of the religion’s governing body members, who died by suicide in January 2020, having been disfellowshipped and ostracised for being gay. Yet the organisation is considered a charity in the UK. It holds tax exemptions and is eligible for direct UK Government funding through Gift Aid. How can that be right? How can an organisation that causes so much harm be charitable?
It is not the only example. There are many small religious organisations active in the UK that expose children to horrific teachings, particularly about women and girls. At Prime Minister’s questions recently, I highlighted the National Secular Society’s “Mission and Misogyny” report, which is full of such examples. There was a recent example near the Minister’s constituency; in January, the NSS reported that the Green Lane masjid and community centre in Birmingham streamed a sermon in which listeners were told that
“discipline in the case of rebellion”
is one of the
“rights of the husband over the wife”,
that husbands have a right to “obedience” as well as a right to “intimacy”.
I must be clear at this point, as I hope I have been throughout, that these extremist examples happen across faith traditions. This example is Islamic; I have equally spent a lot of time up to now talking about a Christian example. These organisations must not cloud our view of the many religious charities that do brilliant work to support people, but they point to a broken charity system in need of repair.
That is why I have been calling for a review into charity law and regulation. We must have ways to ensure that organisations that promote harm towards vulnerable people, particularly through mandated shunning, cannot gain the tax, reputational and funding benefits of a charity. The Charity Commission must also seriously step up its game as a regulator, as there is a serious pattern of failing to take action despite repeated requests, which the “Mission and Misogyny” report lays bare.
I want to also put on the record my shock at the recent case in which the Charity Commission took legal action against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to stop the ombudsman laying before this House reports detailing complaints upheld against the commission. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, had to bring a privilege motion to force the ombudsman to release the files—which it wanted to do—because of the commission’s legal threats blocking it. I understand that the commission has still pursued that legal action. It is not on.
I ask the Minister whether she will make herself popular with the Treasury by agreeing that organisations promoting hate and abusive practices such as shunning should not be eligible for public money, and therefore support my calls for a thorough review of charity status. Will she also agree that either the Government or the relevant Select Committee should consider a thorough deep dive into the Charity Commission’s approach to safeguarding issues?
Finally, I want to briefly touch on a third issue: safeguarding and coercion in medical settings. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the clearest example. As many people will know, their religion teaches not to accept blood transfusions, which is described as a “personal choice” that they make. But when the consequence for not taking that choice is shunning and the permanent cutting off of family and friends, is it a choice? Maybe—and religious freedoms of adults to make medical decisions must always be allowed. Similarly, people must always be free to request visits from religious ministers during medical treatment or a hospital stay.
In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, requests for religious ministers will be met with the arrival of a hospital liaison committee. This is a group of elders whose role is simple: to enforce the rules on blood transfusions. They will “help” patients by advocating for their personal choice not to accept blood and will always claim that decisions are for the patient to make. However, the elders’ handbook, which I have here, clearly states that Witnesses should be strongly encouraged to fill out durable powers of attorney for someone else to refuse blood on their behalf. Either way, the hospital liaison committee will be there, watching. If the patient does not comply with the no-blood rule, they can expect to be disfellowshipped and shunned promptly. With the HLC there, there is little hope of being able to make a real personal choice in private if it differs from religious teaching. That really is coercion.
Ministers of religion can no doubt provide huge support and relief to patients of all faiths, and they do so, but I would argue that they should not be allowed to advocate for patients’ medical wishes where there is a clear conflict of interest, as in these cases. Furthermore, these bodies must only be allowed in when the patient requests them. A former HLC elder has approached me with allegations that some NHS trusts have established policies to call the HLC by default when a Jehovah’s Witness is admitted. No doubt it is done with the best of intentions, as they do not want to do anything wrong, but given that those HLCs exist to push an agenda that may not be the patient’s, that is a serious problem.
I will close by asking the Minister if she will liaise with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues and push for a review of NHS trust policies towards these bodies to ensure that they are called only when a patient requests it, and that patients have clear opportunities to articulate their final decision in respect of any treatment and receive treatment away from the HLC if they so wish.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for his speech, and I am grateful to other Members for their important contributions today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government’s commitment to safeguarding and protecting children and adults from harm across all settings, including within religious and faith communities. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and for the compassion, thoroughness and persistence that he has shown this House on this issue.
Let me first be clear that this Government recognise the central role of faith in our national life, and we are committed to building a Britain where all communities feel safe and where the contributions of people of faith and belief are warmly welcomed and richly valued, as are the contributions of those who, like myself, have no faith—well, I have a lot of faith, but none that would be recognised or organised.
The insights of faith and belief groups should and do play an important role in the national conversation around safeguarding children and preventing violence against women and girls. The other central point to make at the outset is that the Government utterly condemn all acts of psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse against children and adults in all settings, including religious settings of any size or denomination. All such acts should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. As with every case of abuse, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims and survivors.
As this House knows, we are taking forward an ambitious range of measures to improve safeguarding and child protection. Through the violence against women and girls strategy published last year, which deploys the full power of the state to achieve this aim, and through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are strengthening multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and improving information sharing. We are also taking forward work to safeguard and protect children from harm in out-of-school settings, including religious organisations offering education in their own faith.
All out-of-school settings have a legal duty to safeguard and protect children from harm in their care. To support them in meeting this duty, the Department for Education has published guidance setting out the safeguarding standard that they should meet and last year launched a call for evidence to gather views on potential approaches to strengthening safeguarding further, including regulation. The Department for Education is currently analysing the responses and continuing engagement with key stakeholders, and will respond in due course.
We are also taking action on the recommendations of IICSA, which have been mentioned, including establishing a child protection authority to improve the national oversight and leadership of child protection and introducing through the Crime and Policing Bill a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. The duty will create a culture of knowledge, confidence and openness among those most likely to be alerted to child sexual abuse. It will help children and young people to trust that their voices will be heard when they speak out. The duty will apply to those working or volunteering with children in faith settings. There will be no exceptions based on religious practices. We will continue to engage with groups that may be impacted to help them manage the implementation of this new duty.
My hon. Friend raised some specific points about the Government’s mandatory reporting duty, which I would like to address. We are grateful for the expertise of the child protection sector in shaping the new duty. Our shared aim is to have a regime that is effective for children and workable for professionals.
For the avoidance of doubt, the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned have always fully supported the Government policy of not applying criminal sanctions to the failure to report. It is true that they also advocate for robust action against the deliberate concealment of abuse, but there is a qualitative difference between a lapse in reporting and taking active steps to deter it, or destroying or concealing evidence. The Crime and Policing Bill reflects that distinction by creating a criminal offence of obstructing a reporter from carrying out their duty, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The question of whether failures to report should be subject to sanctions was fully considered during the Bill’s parliamentary passage. Earlier today, on Report in the other place, the House rejected a proposition to amend the Bill to that effect.
The question of what triggers the duty—for example, whether to include the observation of signs and indicators —is a separate matter, although I recognise that, because these issues are often debated in tandem, some conflation may have crept in. The Government have not claimed the same stakeholder endorsement for our chosen threshold for the duty. Although some stakeholders favour adding recognised indicators or reasonable suspicion that abuse has occurred, as I have set out previously the Government’s view is that we need to deliver a model that is clear, proportionate and operable, anchored in direct disclosure, witnessing or recorded material. As with all aspects of the duty, we will keep that under review, but we are confident that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance.
Let me respond to some of the points that have been raised. I often feel anxious that people think that any organisation that they raise will not be considered as part of the duty, but most people in positions of trust—we do not need to name them—are covered by the duty because they work in regulated activity with children. That is the core definition in the Bill for a mandated reporter. In other words, if a person’s role as a sports coach already brings them into regular close contact with children, they are in scope.
Helen Hayes
My constituent is a survivor of abuse within a religious organisation, and she represents a larger group of survivors at the same organisation. She has found the Charity Commission to be utterly ineffectual and far too slow in dealing with her complaint. When I wrote to the Minister about this issue, she referred me to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I was referred back to the Home Office. The religious organisation continues to operate with the suspicion that the practices that led to the abuse claimed by my constituent are continuing. We are a couple of years down the line in raising these concerns, so will the Minister advise me how I can get some traction on behalf of my constituent to ensure that her allegations and those of other survivors of the organisation are properly dealt with, and that the organisation cannot continue to operate with the same practices?
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to look directly into that case. My hon. Friend highlights an important problem: we need clarity about who is responsible in the system. First and foremost, if child abuse in an institution is raised with anyone, it should be reported to the police, with the support of the victim. I do not know the details of that case, but I will come on to the issues that my hon. Friend raised about the Charity Commission. As a constituency MP, I have had to raise such issues with the Charity Commission. We need to ensure that the regime of regulation in our charitable sector is as robust as it can be on safeguarding, as well as on financial irregularity and other things. I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said.
Tessa Munt
If I may, I would like to explore what happens with the Minister. There is mistrust of external agencies, and in a lot of these small, high-demand religious organisations—those that look like cults—people may not realise that they have any capacity or agency to report.
Jess Phillips
With the mandatory reporting duty, a huge body of work will go into guidance about how to report. However small—however nervous—they are covered by the duty.
I have only three minutes still to speak. To the issue of faith-based charities promoting misogyny, I hear the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire. The Charity Commission has apparently reviewed the National Secular Society report on religious charities promoting misogyny and confirmed that it has already assessed and responded to a number of incidents. I will follow up on that action, and I will gladly meet him once I have a fully robust answer. He invites me to annoy, I suppose, the Treasury—I do not think he used those words—but I agree with him that, as in the examples he gave, the idea that an organisation can promote the hatred of women or the supplication of people’s wives and also be considered a charity is an alien one. I will follow up on that.
Furthermore, as the Prime Minister announced recently, the Government are already working with the commission on plans to give it additional powers to help tackle extremist abuse, which will bar anyone convicted of hate crimes from serving as a trustee and make it easier for the commission to act against anyone undertaking that. The changes will be made after a public consultation that is coming this month, which I invite everybody to take part in.
I will speak to the Department of Health and Social Care on medical coercion. I do not lead on that as a Minister, but I do not disagree with my hon. Friend that people must be able to make those decisions in full view.
I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. I promise that we will continue to try to work together, because we all want the same thing.
Question put and agreed to.