Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. Please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. We now continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Representation of the People Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate by bobbing that they wish to speak in the current debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate that they wish to withdraw the amendment for the new clause or seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 48
Absent voting
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 3.
New Clause 40—Expired postal votes—
“(1) The Representation of the People Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 4, paragraph 3 (Absent vote at elections for a period) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
‘(5A) In the case of a person whose entitlement to vote by post at elections of the kind in question has expired, the registration officer shall make available, upon request from a registered political party, that person’s details as supplied to the registration officer in his application to vote by proxy at parliamentary elections.’”
This new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I will speak first to clause 48 and associated schedule 3, before addressing Government amendments 14 to 17 and new clause 40, tabled by the Opposition.
The current legislative framework for absent voting was designed for a very different electoral landscape. Today, far more people vote by post; supply chains and administrator resources are under greater pressure; and expectations around reliability and timely delivery have changed. Developed in consultation with the electoral sector, clause 48 modernises and strengthens the absent voting system to reflect those realities. It streamlines administration, gives electors greater flexibility and ensures that safeguards around the integrity of absent vote applications remain robust.
These measures will enable postal voters to take part in elections with confidence, by helping to ensure their ballot is issued and delivered in good time, while allowing a switch to voting in person or by emergency proxy if their ballot is delayed. They will not apply to Northern Ireland because of the different absent voting regime there and the stricter security requirements around absent voting, which are a result of the history of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
Setting clearer rules and deadlines will give electoral administrators the confidence and certainty needed to manage their workload effectively and keep the absent voting system running smoothly at the most demanding points in the electoral timetable. The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. The clause also strengthens safeguards in the absent voting system by clarifying identity verification requirements, and introduces a clear statutory determination deadline for identity verification. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 14, 15 and 16 remove a regulation-making power that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised is unnecessary. The Bill already provides that a proxy with a long-term proxy postal voting arrangement can make temporary arrangements for a particular poll without affecting that long-term arrangement. Where a proxy instead applies for a proxy postal voting arrangement for a particular election, the correct outcome is that the long-term arrangement is cancelled. That is the policy intention, and the Bill already delivers that without the need for regulation-making powers. The amendments therefore simplify the legislation, remove redundant provisions and ensure the law operates clearly and consistently for electoral administrators.
Government amendment 17 ensures consistency between the absent voting regime and the proxy voting offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill already allows someone who has applied to be registered, and is only awaiting the end of the objections period, to be treated as a person who “will be registered” for absent voting purposes. Without the amendment, that same person could be granted a proxy vote but might not be legally capable of committing the offence of acting as a proxy for too many electors if they knowingly breached the proxy limits. The amendment closes that gap, reflects the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and ensures that the law operates clearly, consistently and as intended. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
New clause 40 seeks to require electoral registration officers to share information with political parties about electors whose postal voting arrangements have expired. While supporting voter participation is important, the Government do not consider the new clause to be workable, proportionate or necessary. As drafted, it does not provide access to postal vote expiry data itself; instead, it links disclosure to details supplied in proxy vote applications for parliamentary elections, which is not how postal voting arrangements are recorded or renewed in practice.
Most postal voters will never have applied for a proxy vote. As a result, for many electors whose postal vote has expired, there would simply be no proxy application data to disclose, meaning that the new clause would not achieve its apparent policy aim. There is also a clear mismatch in scope. The new clause refers to postal vote expiry for
“elections of the kind in question”
but limits disclosure to proxy applications made for parliamentary elections, significantly narrowing and distorting the dataset that would be available.
A question of principle is also at stake. Electoral registration officers already have a legal duty to notify electors directly about when their postal voting arrangements are due to expire and to provide them with information about how to make a fresh application to vote by post. That ensures that voters are informed at the right time without reliance on third parties.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.
Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.
I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.
The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting
“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”
within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.
However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.
I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.
It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.
I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Absent Voting
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.
This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.
Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—
“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.
(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49
Power to obtain election-related information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.
Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.
Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.
Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.
What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.
Samantha Dixon
I agree; we should remove all barriers to electors participating in elections. I thank the shadow Minister for describing how those barriers are in effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Effect of the death of the Sovereign on certain elections and referendums
Samantha Dixon
The clause and schedule 4 ensure that in the event of the demise of the Crown, effective and consistent processes are in place for scheduled local elections and other polls, including mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, as is already the case for a parliamentary general election. In the event of the demise of the Crown, if a UK parliamentary general election is taking place, legislation provides for a 14-day pause in the timetable for the general election to allow time for public mourning and the funeral arrangements, and the date of the poll is moved to after the date of the funeral. Different provisions are in place for other types of polls.
We believe that the 14-day pause in proceedings used for UK parliamentary general elections is the most appropriate arrangement, so the clause extends those provisions to a number of other types of election and referendum, including parliamentary by-elections, scheduled local elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The measures also apply to certain Welsh elections in specific circumstances, when they are combined with UK parliamentary or police and crime commissioner elections.
A royal proclamation may already adjust the date of a postponed poll for a UK parliamentary general election by up to seven days. Under the Bill, when such a proclamation is made, any other polls combined with the general election will also move so that they remain combined. The Bill also creates an equivalent ministerial power to adjust postponed polls that are not UK parliamentary general elections by up to seven days. The provisions will ensure that consistent and appropriate provisions are in place for polls being held in such circumstances. I hope that Members will support the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 53
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 18.
Schedule 5.
Samantha Dixon
The clause, schedule 5 and Government amendment 18 deal with parliamentary processes used to update various forms. A range of prescribed electoral forms are set out in legislation, including poll cards, nomination forms and ballot papers. The rules for each type of poll, be it UK parliamentary, mayoral or local government, are set out in separate pieces of legislation. Each set of rules includes a full set of forms, despite the content of each prescribed form being almost entirely the same from one type of election or referendum to the next, so even a minor amendment to a form results in significant duplication across legislation, which is hugely inefficient.
That process is made even more difficult by different parliamentary procedures being required to update the forms in the different pieces of legislation. A good example of that is the recent legislation to add a veteran card to the list of accepted voter ID. That simple addition required an a affirmative instrument to be debated in both Houses to make the change for UK parliamentary elections, a negative instrument replicating the changes for local elections, and a third no-procedure statutory instrument making the same changes to Welsh language forms. That one small change therefore resulted in three instruments and more than 171 pages of legislation.
To reduce the unnecessary burden on parliamentary time, the clause makes a number of streamlining changes and amends the powers in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow the forms to be updated far more efficiently. The sector and stakeholders have been asking for this change, which will allow a relatively small but none the less important consolidation of electoral law.
Government amendment 18 is a purely technical change designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. It corrects a minor drafting error relating to the proposed changes to improve how electoral forms are updated. It is a routine correction identified during the drafting process and does not affect the Bill in substance. I commend the amendment, clause 53 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Amendment made: 18, in schedule 5, page 135, line 5, leave out “and (2)”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment corrects an error by removing a reference to regulations made under rule 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 from provision about the parliamentary procedure applying to certain regulation-making powers under that Act. Rule 8(2) does not confer power to make regulations.
Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 54
Removal of requirement to publish election agents’ addresses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.
Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.
These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
To prevent attempts to circumvent spending limits, current rules require campaigners to seek permission from the courts before they are able to pay invoices late. In practice, most late or disputed claims are delayed due to routine administrative issues. The Electoral Commission has said that the court-based process for leave to pay applications is inefficient and costly, delaying prompt payments and placing unnecessary burdens on campaigners, the courts and suppliers, especially small businesses.
Clause 55 addresses those inefficiencies by transferring responsibility for granting leave from the courts to the Electoral Commission. The commission will be able to give permission to campaigners to pay late or disputed claims. It is right that such decisions are made by the specialist regulator of political finance. By transferring that function to the commission, the clause will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, support both suppliers and campaigners, and maintain the integrity and transparency of the broader campaign finance framework.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 56
Delivery and inspection of returns and declarations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 7.
Clause 57 stand part.
New clause 47—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.
New clause 48—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.
(3) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.”
This new clause reduces the threshold for two offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false declarations are provided in relation to election expenses an offence is committed if they have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are making a false declaration.
New clause 49—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—
“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’.”
This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500).
New clause 50—Penalties for false declarations—
“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.”
This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.
Samantha Dixon
Under current rules, candidates or their election agents must deliver a return and declaration and any accompanying documents relating to their election expenses to the returning officer. To supplement the extension of the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role, clause 56 will require candidates or their election agents also to deliver a copy of the return and declaration and accompanying documents to the Electoral Commission. Those incurring expenditure in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners will likewise be required to deliver copies of relevant returns and declarations to the commission.
That will ensure timely receipt of returns and declarations by the Electoral Commission, which is essential to its ability to perform its new regulatory functions quickly, scrutinise returns and deal with those not complying with the rules. The Electoral Commission will also have new responsibilities for making candidate returns and declarations available for public inspection, promoting transparency by facilitating the collection and publication of data on candidate finance in a single source. Allowing the Electoral Commission to prescribe a form of return that campaigners must use will also help campaigners comply with reporting requirements and facilitate scrutiny of returns.
Turning to clause 57, the Electoral Commission has existing duties to monitor and secure compliance with the expenditure and donations rules set out in PPERA, as well as other enactments promulgating rules concerning candidates or their election agents. To enable it to perform those duties effectively, it also has powers to make regulations relating to information that must be included in donations reports that are required under these pieces of legislation.
Paul Holmes
We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56?
Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent?
The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever.
I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates—
I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government.
I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed. The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings.
Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations.
Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited. For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.
Paul Holmes
I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.
Lisa Smart
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.
New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.
On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to.
Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency. We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses.
I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense? Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns?
Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that
“The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.”
Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward? It would be very helpful in improving transparency and clarity in the system.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will just make some very brief remarks on the record.
I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47.
As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well. I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill.
The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that
“a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.”
There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address. It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.
Samantha Dixon
A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.
In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.
Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.
On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.
We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.
New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had
“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”
that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.
The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.
The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.
In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.
New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.
Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.
Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.
Samantha Dixon
The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 58, page 67, line 38, leave out “, when it” and insert “—
(a) the party has not previously undertaken a risk assessment in relation to a relevant benefit accruing to the party in the same calendar year, and
(b) when the value of the donation”.
This amendment would mean that a risk assessment is required for donations when the £11,180 threshold (for donations or regulated transactions) is breached the first time in a calendar year. (See also amendment 40, which requires a risk assessment the second or subsequent time the threshold is breached.)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“(da) whether the person from whom the donation is received is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme established by the National Security Act 2023.”
This amendment would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.
Government amendments 42 and 43.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 44 to 78.
Schedule 8.
Government new clause 60—Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000—
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Samantha Dixon
I will first speak to clause 58, schedule 8, Government new clause 60, and Government amendments 39 to 41 and 44 to 78, before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
In line with recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission—clause 58 addresses a long-standing gap in electoral law. Current rules require recipients of donations to verify the permissibility of the donor but do not require them to assess whether a donor may be facilitating a donation from an impermissible source. Existing permissibility checks remain important, but they do not always provide sufficient assurance where donations are routed through third parties or where risk indicators are present.
The clause introduces a clear, proportionate due diligence duty on campaigners to look beyond current permissibility checks and determine whether there is a material risk that a political contribution originates from an impermissible source. The new framework strengthens the ability of campaigners to assure themselves that donations come from permissible sources. Its purpose is not to impose unnecessary burdens, but to ensure that campaigners take reasonable, proportionate steps to understand who is behind a donation. By embedding a culture of risk-based due diligence, the clause helps to guard against foreign interference, increases confidence in the integrity of donations, and aligns political finance rules with best practice in other sectors.
Government amendment 39 to 41 and 44 to 78 seek to clarify the point at which a political donation exceeds the £11,180 thresholds and requires a risk assessment under the new “know your donor” rules. Currently, the Bill requires a risk assessment once a recipient receives cumulative contributions from the same donor surpassing £11,180 in a calendar year. However, after that point is reached, every further donation received from the same donor in the same calendar year, regardless of value, would require another risk assessment. That was not our policy intention.
Under the updated approach, a risk assessment will be required each time a donor gives £11,180 cumulatively or as an individual donation, after which the running total in effect will reset to zero. That replaces the previous rolling aggregation threshold, removing unnecessary repetition and ensuring that parties complete a risk assessment only when receiving a further significant donation from the same donor. Risk assessments could be carried out on every donation if a campaigner feels the need to do so.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme.
As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure.
I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation.
Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments.
We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation.
We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments.
I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.
Lisa Smart
We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further.
The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments? The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear?
The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner. She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments.
I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.
Dr Chowns
Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements.
I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors. It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.
Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation. That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties.
That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.
Lloyd Hatton
Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.
I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?
Lloyd Hatton
I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.
In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.
I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.
I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that it is not necessarily befitting of the House to make comment on whether other hon. Members may or may not have conducted matters in a dishonourable fashion.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered.
It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape. When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge.
I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon. Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to pick up on the implications of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and the hon. Member for South Dorset. We are all aware that Reform was the first political organisation to come into being as a private company. It operates outside the framework of a traditional political party, and that carries with it some risks.
As the Minister has outlined, the intention is that the framework identifying those risks can be regularly updated. However, that organisation has been in existence for some six years, so this is not something that has suddenly materialised. The point that my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, and in the amendments covering things such as FIRS, is that that these are emerging risks that we have all been aware of for some time.
I appreciate the Minister’s point about the timetable and where we are in this Session, but it would be helpful to understand from her how soon those long-standing risks that we have been aware of for some time will find their way into secondary legislation and therefore the framework, or where they might feature in amendments on Report so that they can be properly taken into account.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member will appreciate that implementation of the Bill will require substantial secondary legislation. As tempting as it is to set out a timetable, we have to focus on getting the primary legislation through first. There is the tension, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove described, between going at pace to implement measures such as votes at 16 and considering as comprehensively as possible the matters that arise from the Rycroft review. It is a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one, for the Government to do both.
Considerable parliamentary time will be devoted to the secondary legislation; that will become clearer as time progresses. We need to move forward as swiftly as we can. We will introduce the amendment regarding crypto when parliamentary time allows, and we will ensure that it has parliamentary scrutiny. I have noted the comments by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about a donor registration scheme. None the less, it is beholden on political parties, candidates and campaigners to take seriously the risks from donors. It will be their responsibility, under this legislation, to assess those risks, and if they are found to wilfully, recklessly or knowingly circumvent them, they will be subject to prosecution.
We need to move forward with this legislation as much as we can. I sense the frustration from Members across the Committee about the time that will be required to do this, but we need to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and at pace but not too fast. I jest, but we will do it as soon as we possibly can in a way that does not jeopardise scrutiny.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Samantha Dixon
With the introduction of votes at 16, 14 and 15-year-olds will be able to pre-register as attainers for up to two years before they reach voting age. To safeguard the data of young people, their electoral register data will be subject to enhanced protections. These enhanced safeguards will restrict access to under-16s’ electoral registration data, meaning that political parties and other recipients of political donations will not be able to independently verify whether a 14 or 15-year-old is on the register.
Clause 59 closes a potential loophole by prohibiting donations from under-16 attainers, ensuring that the electoral regime remains secure, while still allowing 16 and 17-year-olds, whose details can be verified, to donate like all other voters. The clause reduces the risk of impermissible or potentially foreign-linked donations entering the electoral system via routes that are unverifiable. Given the wider context of foreign interference concerns, we believe it is right to take this preventive step. Sixteen and 17-year-olds will still be able to donate like any other eligible voter, enabling early registration while ensuring that the political finance system is safeguarded from impermissible donations as younger voters become active participants in our democracy. I commend clause 59 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Donations by companies and LLPs etc
Lisa Smart
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
‘54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.’”
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence if they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Amendment 36, in clause 60, page 77, line 14, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 77, line 28, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Clause stand part.
New clause 13—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 32—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
New clause 52—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Lisa Smart
Before I speak to the amendments, I should say that I welcome clause 60, but I do not support new clauses 13, 32 or 52. The overall thrust of these provisions is that the UK is one of the only countries that still allows donations by companies, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she and her colleagues gave any consideration to putting a stop to that altogether.
Amendments 34 to 37 are, again, in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. The Committee’s report identified a need for tighter rules on corporate donations. That includes ensuring that proportionate civil and criminal sanctions can be targeted at those who deliberately engage in wrongdoing.
Amendment 34 would ensure that corporate donors must nominate a director or partner who would be responsible for complying with the legal requirements. Otherwise, the JCNSS fears that there is a risk of inadequate deterrence if accountability can be attributed to a complex corporate structure. The amendment would help to enable the Electoral Commission and law enforcement to hold specific individuals to account for wrongdoing.
Amendment 35 is a linked amendment, and specifies that the responsible director or partner would be criminally liable for breaching political finance rules. To ensure appropriate deterrence, it would raise the penalties from 12 months to three years in prison. Those higher sentences would also enable law enforcement to make use of more extensive investigatory powers when examining potential wrongdoing. The National Crime Agency said that the use of many investigatory tools is curtailed by the fact that sentences are only 12 months.
On amendments 36 and 37, the JCNSS report highlighted a potential Bill loophole relating to corporate donation limits. The Committee supported the Government’s proposal of limiting donations in line with the amount of revenue generated in the UK, but the report highlighted assessments from the Electoral Commission that the upper limit appears to apply to the individual recipients of donations, rather than to the individual company. That suggests that a company could donate its upper limit to a political party and then donate the upper limit hundreds of times over to individual MPs and regulated entities—for example, candidates. The Committee concluded that this unlimited limit is the wrong policy choice and a major issue with the Bill’s drafting. It seeks to fix that loophole with the amendments.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak first to clause 60, before addressing the amendments tabled by hon. Members.
Clause 60 directly responds to long-standing concerns about vulnerabilities in the current political finance system and about the risk of illicit foreign money influencing UK democracy. Under the current framework, it is possible for shell companies or companies with weak UK connections to be used to channel money into our political system. The Electoral Commission and many other stakeholders have consistently called for stronger safeguards to ensure that only legitimate entities can donate.
The new tests will require companies and limited liability partnerships wishing to donate to registered political parties to meet stricter criteria to show a genuine UK connection. The company must have generated enough income in the previous three calendar years to justify its donation. That will help to prevent shell companies from being used as fronts for foreign money. Additionally, companies must meet strict criteria related to control. They will need to be headquartered in the UK, and the majority of persons with significant control must be UK electors or UK citizens. That will ensure UK electoral control and prevent foreign influence. To prevent companies from being set up solely to make political donations, donors must have at least one up-to-date set of accounts filed with Companies House.