House of Commons
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
A stronger Wales in a stronger United Kingdom—that will be my driving principle as Secretary of State for Wales, building on the outstanding work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East (Jo Stevens). Just last week, the Prime Minister and I saw the strength of our Union in action on a visit to Port Talbot, where the UK Government have invested nearly £700 million to secure the future of Welsh steel, protect jobs and re-industrialise Wales.
Douglas Lumsden
New figures from August show that being part of our strong United Kingdom is worth an extra £2,720 to every person in Scotland, compared with the UK average. Does the Secretary of State agree that this demonstrates the economic benefits of our Union, and what assessment has he made of the financial benefits to Wales of being part of the United Kingdom?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree with him that being part of our United Kingdom is of tremendous benefit to Wales. Just look at the investment that the UK Government have been putting in. I mentioned steel, but there has also been £2.5 billion for the Wylfa nuclear project and £500 million through the local growth fund—the list goes on and on. I absolutely agree with his assessment that it is about building a stronger Wales in a stronger United Kingdom.
Sir Desmond Swayne
A strength of the Union is unity in diversity. Notwithstanding much progress since 2010, the last two years have seen a diminution in the number of Welsh speakers in Wales, particularly among young people. Does the Minister have a plan to nip that in the bud and stop it becoming a trend?
Stephen Kinnock
We are tremendously proud of our Welsh language. I am certainly signing up to improve mine—from what I am embarrassed to admit is a relatively low base. I enjoy learning languages, so I will be doing that. Generally speaking, we need to ensure that the trend towards Welsh medium and Welsh language across our education system continues, and that those who are committed to the diversity of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks also commit to learning the Welsh language.
John Lamont
Strong transport links between the nations of our United Kingdom are vital to strengthening the Union. However, since Loganair withdrew its regular Cardiff to Edinburgh service earlier this year, there is now no direct air link between the Welsh and Scottish capitals. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a backwards step for connectivity in the UK, and will he work with the Transport Secretary, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and Loganair to see if that route can be reinstated?
Stephen Kinnock
Cardiff airport plays a crucial role in connecting our United Kingdom. We of course want the maximum number of flight routes between Cardiff and the rest of the UK. Loganair, as a commercial operator, makes decisions on the basis of the commercial realities it is facing. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with any ideas he has about how we might get back to the table on the issue, I would be happy to engage on that basis.
Chris Kane
The Prime Minister has spoken about practical Government interventions that can make everyday life a little bit easier. One of the great advantages of devolution is that different parts of the UK can try different approaches to common challenges. My experience in Scotland is that the SNP often turns differences in public policy into arguments about the constitution, when people really want Government focused on making their lives better now. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should look for things that unite us and share what works, so that good ideas from across Scotland, England and Northern Ireland benefit Wales, and vice versa?
Stephen Kinnock
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of learning lessons and seizing opportunities. Over the past six weeks, the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, introducing practical changes that will benefit people’s lives, such as the £2 bus cap in England. Of course, it will be up to the Welsh Government to come to a conclusion on whether they too might introduce such a measure, but I am hopeful that both Governments will learn from each other about how best to improve the lives of the people we serve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
We saw the practical benefits of the Union with the Minister’s swift action on military personnel coming to deal with the wildfires. Will he join me in paying tribute to the farmers and firefighters who dealt with those wildfires, and does he also agree that, as climate change makes them a more regular occurrence, we need a long-term plan to deal with them?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires. I can confirm that the South Wales fire and rescue service submitted a military aid to the civil authorities request for consideration, which was immediately endorsed by both the Welsh Government and the Wales Office—by myself—and authorised by the Ministry of Defence. Although matters relating to agriculture and the fire and rescue services are devolved in Wales, we are committed to working with the Welsh Government to strengthen resilience against wildfires and to provide assistance to those affected.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
The Plaid Cymru Welsh Government marked their first 100 days in office last week with little fanfare—their achievements to date seem to be setting up Committees and commissioning reports, rather than focusing on the needs of the people of Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree that spending time and money on a commission into independence and undermining the Union of the United Kingdom is not the best way to deliver on the priorities for the people of Wales?
Stephen Kinnock
I think it is fair to say that Plaid Cymru Ministers are still finding their feet. I am hugely proud of what our new Labour Prime Minister has achieved for Wales in his first six weeks—it really shows what a leader can do when they roll up their sleeves, listen to our people and communities, and deliver on their priorities. The Prime Minister’s visit to Wales and his commitment to reindustrialising our communities comes after a summer of announcements that will benefit communities across Wales—real action delivering for people right here and now.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place and wish him and his team well in this important role. As a former Health Minister working on the NHS in England for the past two years, he will know the challenge of tackling hospital waiting times in the face of rising corridor care. As I think we have heard from the Secretary of State, the time for devolving and forgetting has long since passed, and all nations in our precious Union need fair treatment. Will the Secretary of State do more than simply watch from the sidelines—like his predecessor, sadly—and instead take action for the people of Wales, who have been waiting far too long for proper care under devolution?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales. We respect the devolution settlement; it is very important that we keep that at the forefront of our minds to ensure that decisions on health that affect the people of Wales are taken by the Welsh Government. As I said earlier, I think there are real opportunities for all Governments across the UK to learn from each other, and I hope that our colleagues in the Welsh Government will look at the success we are having in bringing down waiting lists and improving the performance and delivery of general practice in England, and will perhaps follow suit in Wales.
Mims Davies
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but if being devolved means not being able to get involved when things go wrong, that is the reason the Welsh NHS is in the mess it is.
I want to raise something important for our Union and for the people of Wales. A significant ITV Wales investigation uncovered 28 prevention of future death reports over a 16-month period relating to the scandal-hit Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. [Interruption.] The House might want to listen. North Wales resident David Jones tragically lost his wife and father there. He is angry. He has accused the UK Labour Government of failing victims and their families by not intervening and leaving them in limbo. Will the Secretary of State use the Inquiries Act 2005 and seek accountability?
Stephen Kinnock
Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon. Lady will be aware that health is devolved and, as such, Welsh Government Ministers have powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to initiate statutory inquiries into devolved areas. Given the clear lines of responsibility and accountability between the Welsh Government and the devolved health service in Wales, I do not feel it would be appropriate for the UK Government to intervene in this matter.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. Many of my constituents are reliant on cross-border healthcare, particularly in Hereford hospital. Indeed, many of them will end up stuck in Hereford hospital because we do not have enough community hospital beds in Powys. Powys teaching health board acknowledges that it needs 400 beds, but we only have 148, and it is considering cutting that number further. Can he please outline what are his priorities for fixing cross-border healthcare issues?
Stephen Kinnock
Cross-border healthcare is a really important issue. We need to find a better way of working together in partnership with the Welsh Government. It is about drilling down into specific cases where people have not been given the treatment that they should get at the speed at which they should get it. It is also about clearing some of the red tape and bureaucracy that exists between the two Governments and doing the hard yards of Government working with the Welsh Health Ministers and ourselves to get this issue resolved.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
If this is a Union of equals, let me turn to the wildfires that we suffered in Wales and England this summer. The Rhinogydd mountains of Eryri national park are the last true upland wilderness in Wales. They burned for over two weeks in July, causing immeasurable damage to peatlands and wildlife. Despite heroic work by local firefighters, there were no UK-wide resources available, including the military, to tackle this ecological disaster. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient resources in the face of overwhelming climate change?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that. I hope that she welcomes the fact that when the Welsh Government and fire services put in a request for military aid to the civil authorities, I myself turned around that request within an hour. I think that shows “Team Wales”—the partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh authorities to get on top of these deeply troubling situations.
Liz Saville Roberts
I appreciate the tone of the Secretary of State’s answer. I note that the Prime Minister said yesterday that change begins with honesty, so let us be honest: harping on about the strength of the Union in the same breath as calling for change is a distraction. A Union that treats people differently depending on where they live must change. Does he honestly believe that the city region of Greater Manchester should have more powers over policing and keeping communities safe than the Parliament of Wales, the Senedd?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her. With regard to policing, the Prime Minister and I have been very clear that we will engage on the future of devolution, including deepening devolution into communities across all corners of Wales. On policing specifically, our focus has been, and will continue to be, on cutting crime. Our priority will always be ensuring the safety and security of the people of Wales. What matters is what works.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Housing is a devolved matter in Wales, but we know that people are struggling with the affordability of everyday life. That is why easing the burden on the cost of living is our priority. We have taken immediate action by removing VAT from energy bills from 1 October, giving millions of households breathing space this winter.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, as the Minister is well aware, the Welsh Government have failed to meet their own 2021-26 social housing target. I wonder what lessons have been learned from that, and indeed from the Welsh Government’s introduction of curbs on second homes through the planning system. Surely this refreshed Government must be taking lessons from Wales and applying them across the UK as a whole.
Anna McMorrin
I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there are always lessons to be learned in this place, but we recognise that more needs to be done on second homes and short-term lets. The UK Government will consider a wide range of evidence on the issue, including learning from other parts of the UK. Affordable housing is of great importance to the Prime Minister. Just last week he announced where more than 70,000 social and affordable homes will be built across England over the next 10 years. This will be transformative, and I hope that the Plaid Government in Wales will follow through on their promise to build 20,000 new social homes in Wales by 2030.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has promised to do all he can to end rough sleeping by offering everyone who needs it in England a route off the streets by Christmas. In Newport we have excellent charities such as Eden Gate, which I visited recently, working with the council’s outreach services, but they need more support. Does the Minister agree that the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government should follow Labour’s lead by making tackling homelessness a priority?
Anna McMorrin
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister’s announcement to give everyone a route off the streets by Christmas comes with a £442 million boost in funding and a landmark summit to bring everyone together to end rough sleeping. That will not only change the lives of those being given somewhere to sleep and a foundation to rebuild their lives but have huge benefits right across the country. I hope that the Plaid Government will follow suit and ensure that everyone in Wales has a roof over their head this Christmas.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Tackling child poverty is an essential investment in the future of our children and our country. That is why we announced the child poverty strategy, including the removal of the two-child limit, which will benefit nearly 70,000 children in Wales. Alongside that, 320,000 families in Wales will see the first ever sustained real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in his new job. As he will be aware, the Welsh Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry into child poverty in Wales, which stands stubbornly high at 31%. With a new minority Government elected in Cardiff Bay and many of the levers relating to child poverty split between the UK and Welsh Governments, what conversations has he had with Senedd Ministers regarding ending child poverty in Wales?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with my hon. Friend that co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments is essential for addressing child poverty in Wales. The UK Government worked closely with the previous Welsh Labour Government on the design of the child poverty strategy, which will lift 550,000 children out of poverty across the UK by 2030, delivering the largest expected reduction in child poverty since records began.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is right to recognise the reduction of child poverty in Wales, but of course the Government here took the decision to reduce child poverty not just in Wales but in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as well. Does he agree that when it comes to recognising the good work the Government have done in reducing child poverty, the whole House should come together and say thank you to the Labour party for doing that, taking 60,000 families out of poverty in Northern Ireland?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the hon. Member’s question. Let us look at what the Welsh Labour Government delivered: breakfast clubs offering free, healthy breakfasts for children in primary schools; baby bundles; more than 50 million meals served since the introduction of universal primary free school meals; an expanded childcare offer; free prescriptions; and hospital parking to help with family finances. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
In the past 100 days, we have all witnessed the Plaid Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay having failed to publish costings and properly explain how their flagship childcare policy will work. Perhaps Plaid just wants higher taxes and higher hand-outs, like the welfare party that is Labour sitting across from us. Does the Secretary of State agree that hard-working families deserve to know whether those plans will mean higher taxes? What discussions have occurred with the Welsh Government to ensure that those election commitments are properly delivered for struggling families?
Stephen Kinnock
Frankly, I am staggered that the hon. Lady raises the issue of welfare, given the explosion of the welfare bill under the watch of the Conservative party. When it comes to working with the Plaid Cymru Government, I agree that there seem to be a lot of reviews, commissions, reports and committees. It is important that the Plaid Government now roll up their sleeves and get on with the job. We look forward to working constructively in partnership with them and delivering for the people and communities of Wales.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
I recognise the connectivity benefits of transport. The overall cross-border connectivity that has been announced relates to the £14 billion that we are going to invest in rail in Wales, with £455 million secured at the spending review. This plan will transform connectivity across Wales, and between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mark Pritchard
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment to the Cabinet. He will know that I have very fond memories of his constituency, growing up as a young boy. Will he throw his support behind the open-access application by the Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway company to the Office of Rail and Road? The new revised application would include Wellington in my constituency and give a £3 million economic boost to that market town. Will he work with Network Rail, the Office of Rail and Road and the Transport Secretary, and get that new timetable and route delivered?
Stephen Kinnock
I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport has provided conditional support for the application, subject to the Office of Rail and Road and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance or affecting the rights of other operators. I will certainly join him in making the case for that compelling project.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to her as the first female Labour Secretary of State for Wales. Wales is better off as a result of her work on rail, nuclear, steel and more. I recognise the central importance of the Cardiff Parkway project, which could unlock up to 6,000 jobs. I will do all that I can, working with the Welsh Government and private investors, to progress the delivery of that important project at pace.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Farming is central to Wales’s economy and rural communities, and we are steadfast in our support for farmers. That is why I regularly meet and speak to farmers and their unions, visiting farms and agricultural shows across the country, including the Royal Welsh show this summer.
Sarah Bool
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would give back control to people over their destinies. The best way he could do that for farmers in Wales and across the United Kingdom is to reverse the family farm tax. Will the ministerial team advocate for that?
Anna McMorrin
We are listening closely to farmers, as we always have. We have announced more to protect family farms. We have changed the allowance for the 100% rate of relief, increasing it from £1 million to £2.5 million. That gets the balance right between supporting farms and businesses, fixing the public finances and funding our public services.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. She is absolutely right: these are challenging times right across the country. Wildfires are a stark reminder for us to take care of our environment as we face the ongoing challenges of our changing climate, and we need to mitigate the effects of more summers like this. Most importantly, I want to pay a huge tribute to our incredible fire and rescue services, our police and our military for putting their lives on the line to keep our communities safe.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
It was good to be back at this Dispatch Box yesterday for the first time in 16 years, and I understand that I broke records on my first day back for the longest statement in modern history. Thanks for your help with that, Mr Speaker.
On my engagements, this evening I will join Their Majesties the King and Queen and President Macron at the British Museum to celebrate the arrival of the Bayeux tapestry. The loaning of the tapestry is a great example of French-British co-operation—the same co-operation that has helped us reduce summer small boat crossings to a seven-year low. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Ann Davies
May I first welcome the Prime Minister to his place? I also welcome his exemption of offences including death by dangerous driving from early prison release, but this comes after months of anguish for bereaved families, including my constituent Lisa Jones, whose husband Aaron was killed on 23 December 2024. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to victims and their families who have been put through significant distress throughout this process? Can he also assure them that, unlike the Labour precedent, there will be no Government U-turn on this?
The Prime Minister
Can I start by paying tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has represented the Jones family? I understand their anguish, and that of the many other families who found themselves in their position. I listened to what they were saying, and I came in and asked for changes to the early release scheme. We excluded rape, grooming and child sex offences, but on hearing those voices, I was not satisfied and I pushed the system to go further. As a result of that, we are going further and excluding death by dangerous driving and other manslaughter offences, so I hope she can now give that certainty to the family and that she will also give them my best wishes. I believe we are coming to the right position, and I can assure her that the Justice Secretary will be on top of this situation so that we ensure we are never in this position again.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for everything she has done to stand up for her constituents, but more so for Wales, particularly in her role as Secretary of State for Wales? I understand the point she is making: big cities outside London, particularly a capital city, face extra pressure that is not faced by other police forces. We are reviewing the funding formula as part of a wider programme of police reform. I would be happy to engage with her on that very issue as part of the review. We have ensured that forces, including South Wales police, are receiving a boost in their funding, but I understand the position of cities that are, if you like, the focal point that many people travel towards and the extra pressure that that results in. I know that from my previous job, and that is why I will pay very close attention to what she is saying.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina? Three hours! [Laughter.] Yesterday, he faced 125 questions from MPs across the House. Of course, Labour and the Lib Dems just wanted more Government spending—that is, taxpayers’ money—but can he name a single spending request to which he answered no?
The Prime Minister
What I can say to the right hon. Lady is that I was quite clear in my statement about the need to get the welfare bill down. I do not want to be a Prime Minister who sees a situation where we have so many people in their 20s not in education, employment or training. I cannot defend that, and I want to change it by giving more support to young people, so that we start investing in their success rather than paying for failure, as we have done for many years under successive Governments. This seems to me to be one area where both of us can engage in problem solving rather than point scoring, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will take up my offer on that.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister avoided the question. He did not say no to a single spending request. Personally, I think it is delightful that he wants to make everyone happy, but a Prime Minister needs to be a leader, not a people pleaser. He is talking about working together on welfare. I already made that offer, but it does mean cuts—he wants to bring the welfare bill down by spending more money. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that his summer of promises would be paid for by “reprioritising within Government”, so what exactly has he cut?
The Prime Minister
In terms of “what has he cut?”, tax is the simple answer to that question. Within days of taking office, I indicated that we would remove VAT from electricity bills. That will help people with the cost of living. Then, days later, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we said that there would be a cut in business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. This Government are lowering the cost of living and lowering the cost of business, and that is what we will continue to do. I say to the right hon. Lady that that has to be fully funded, and those commitments are fully funded. We made an early decision to be clear about our priorities. Digital ID is not a priority for me or for this Government. We reallocated the funding, and we made those commitments as a result.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked what the Prime Minister cut. He says tax cuts. He has not said where the money is coming from. He talks about digital ID—[Interruption.] Yes, I know he said digital ID, but the Chief Secretary to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said that there was no money allocated to digital ID. You cannot cut something that never existed in the first place.
Lord O’Neill, a close friend of the Prime Minister, said yesterday’s statement in the Commons was
“the last thing investors wanted to hear”.
Lord O’Neill is a serious economist. He knows what he is talking about. Sure enough, yesterday the cost of Government borrowing rose to its highest in 18 years. How does the Prime Minister plan to tackle the Government’s rising debt costs?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Lady that I have worked with Jim O’Neill for 10 years. Jim O’Neill always gives me candid advice. We do not always agree, but he and I worked together to turn Greater Manchester from a former industrial heartland to the fastest-growing city region in the country. [Interruption.] Conservative Members complain, but where are their ideas about growth? When they were in government, we saw 14 years of stagnant growth. We saw 14 years of debt rising as a percentage of GDP. I say to the right hon. Lady that the turbulence on global markets is because of that exposure that they left behind. We are turning the corner. In the first half of this year, we have had the fastest growth in the G7. Borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years. We are cutting the deficit faster than any other G7 country. I say to the Conservative party and particularly to the right hon. Lady: that is problem solving rather than point scoring.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what any of that has to do with tackling the cost of increasing debt. Collaborating with Jim O’Neill is not how we are going to get debt costs down, and he said yesterday that the markets would be worried. The markets are clearly worried that we now have a spendthrift Prime Minister who wants to say yes to everyone but cannot tell us where the money is coming from. He needs to pay for all his new promises, and he has a choice: higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts. Yesterday he said, “Change begins with honesty”, so will he be honest and tell us: is he preparing to raise taxes again—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Lady that I have already indicated that my first moves were to cut tax, but like any Prime Minister, I am not going to write the Budget here. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I also say to her that he and I took a deliberate decision to set an early date for the Budget, so that we reduced the period for prolonged speculation of the kind that she wants us to indulge in today.
I also say this to the right hon. Lady and, indeed, the whole of her new shadow Cabinet, the majority of whom were part of a Government that lasted for 49 days—a short-lived Government that crashed confidence in the economy and hammered people’s mortgages. She took a decision at the weekend: she removed a shadow Chancellor who said that the Truss mini-Budget was a mistake and replaced him with one who helped to write the Truss mini-Budget. Dare I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition herself is on record as saying that Liz Truss was “100% right”? What else can I say in response to all that, other than, “God help us!”?
Mrs Badenoch
The whole House will have heard that the Prime Minister did not rule out tax rises. Instead, what he did was lots of point scoring. He says he wants a new politics; he says he wants honestly, so why is he pretending that a junior Minister wrote that Budget? The fact is that gilt yields now, the cost of borrowing now—[Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing; I do not know why they are laughing. The cost of borrowing now is far more than it ever was under Liz Truss. The reason why that Budget failed is that spending was announced before the money to pay for it, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing right now. He says it is the new politics; it is the same old Labour politics—tax and spend. He did not rule out tax rises, and what markets see is a Government that cannot control their spending, so the markets will charge us more to borrow. That means higher mortgage rates for families. It makes life more difficult for businesses, and that pushes up the cost of living for everyone. Higher borrowing costs are the biggest threat to family finances, so will he rule out any more borrowing that will make people poorer?
The Prime Minister
May I say to the right hon. Lady something I said earlier? Debt was rising as a percentage of GDP under the Government that she, and her new shadow Chancellor, served in. He was hardly some PPS to the DEFRA Secretary, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; he was a senior Minister in the Treasury on the day of the Truss Budget. The right hon. Lady mentions mortgage rates, and that was the day they spiked; that was the day the British public were hammered by the previous Government. We are taking the action needed to get debt down. This will be a Government grounded in fiscal responsibility. We will stick to the fiscal rules, but at the same time we will help to reduce cost of living pressure on our constituents. That is the approach we will take, and that is the approach that I suggest the Conservative party should follow, too.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister now and he needs to answer the questions, instead of spending time attacking someone who has more private sector experience than his entire Cabinet. I asked him whether he would rule out more borrowing. He did not do so. We spend more servicing our debt than we do on defence—almost double. There is war in Europe. Yesterday, Germany confirmed that Russia was behind the attack on Leipzig airport. Tensions are so high that the director of the CIA flew to Moscow. We need the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence now, but the armed forces will not know what they will be getting until next July’s spending review. There is a simple answer to this: cut welfare spending and invest that money in our defence now. Mr Speaker, the honeymoon is over. Isn’t it time for the Prime Minister to ditch the vibes and get serious about defending our nation?
The Prime Minister
I will start with the serious point made by the right hon. Lady, which is the announcement by the German Government yesterday in relation to the attack in Leipzig. That should unite the House in sending complete condemnation of that attack by Russia, and complete solidarity to support both Germany and Ukraine, and that position will not change.
That takes me to defence. The very reason I appointed this Chancellor to his position is because of his strong commitment to the defence of our country and to defence spending. We will fully fund the defence investment plan. At the spending review we will set out a plan to meet our NATO commitments by 2035. There is no problem with our commitment to defence. More broadly, the right hon. Lady has made a lot of accusations about what went wrong, but I go back to the position that she left. The country was not heading in the right direction. Now, we are heading in the right direction. Yesterday, I laid out a clear, coherent, credible plan for growth, based on 10 years of delivering it myself. This is grounded in reality. I want to take it to all parts of the country. It is all about bringing back a sense of positivity, a sense of possibility, with growth in every postcode. Let this country believe in itself again; let people have some hope. That is what this Government will do.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his campaign on this issue. I was talking about getting an innovation-led economy going in all parts of the country, and that applies to research, including into life sciences. I strongly believe that we must address all barriers to high-quality research in the life sciences. I am happy to look at my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I will ask a Health Minister to meet him to discuss them. Of course, any changes must be evidence-based and proportionate and must maintain our safeguards.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Prime Minister said yesterday that Brexit ushered in
“a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]
He is right. Our economy is stuck in this mess thanks to the Conservatives—and the leader of Reform UK—and their terrible Brexit deal. Unless we grow the economy, there is no way that we can end the cost of living crisis or cut the cost of borrowing for the Government. The answer is staring the Prime Minister in the face: join the single market, get a new deal with Europe, and cut costs for families, businesses and Government. It is the bold step our country desperately needs. Will the Prime Minister take it?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right to share the analysis that I laid out yesterday. It is clear that the decade of low growth that we have had has been partly a result of Brexit. The sooner the Conservative party accepts that, the more we can start to face up to Britain’s future and where we go from here. I do want a closer relationship. I will build on the work of my predecessor. There are issues facing British farming right now. There are issues facing British steel right now. The “Made in Europe” agenda could pose significant problems for British steel. As he will know, we are approaching a UK-EU summit in the next couple of months. It is imperative, I believe, that we work hard to get a good deal for British steel and for British farming as part of that new deal that he talks about.
Ed Davey
I hope at that summit the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal for our country, our economy and our defence, and that means rejoining the single market.
North Devon’s maternity unit has been closed for three weeks due to staff shortages, so women now have to travel for up to two hours to give birth. I cannot imagine the extra stress and anxiety that would have caused us when my kids were born. Women are even being taught how to give birth in their cars—that should be unthinkable in our country. Will the Prime Minister commit to reopening North Devon’s maternity unit in days, not weeks? Will he stop maternity closures across the country so that expectant mums never have to face travelling such terrifying distances?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly give a direct answer: I will commit to reopening it but not within days; I am not in a position to make that commitment today. But I am again in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not acceptable for his constituents—[Interruption.] Apologies—I realise his constituency is somewhere else. It is not acceptable for people living in the North Devon area to have to travel that far. Let me take that away.
I also say to the right hon. Gentleman with honesty that there are structural issues affecting maternity services across the UK. This is not the only hospital where there have been difficulties. As a former Secretary of State for Health, I am aware that there have been long-standing shortages of midwives across the country. It is right that we look at all those issues. I can give him a guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is looking at those issues following the recent maternity reviews.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We certainly will do that. I am in no doubt over the importance of good transport connectivity to young people’s life chances, and I will ask No. 10 North to make contact with my hon. Friend so that we can get that scheme back on track. More broadly, we do need to change the way we support young people, and I have already announced a change to education so that we have a technical path for young people from 14—so that we give young people a path towards good T-levels, BTECs, work placements and degree apprenticeships and we support them with travel costs, which is something that I did in Greater Manchester. Bringing back hope very much starts with our young people—give them a clear path from school towards a good job. That is something that the current education system that was put in place by Michael Gove has sadly failed to do.
Mr Speaker
May I say to the Prime Minister that I admire his answering questions in detail, but my problem is I am not going to get through the list, and then we will both be in trouble with Back Benchers?
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The people of Northern Ireland are absolutely scundered. At the moment, we have poisonous parading disputes and border poll spats; meanwhile, the Northern Ireland Assembly has no budget. Prime Minister, whenever we met last week, I think there was an acknowledgment that we can either have an unreformed Stormont or we can have sound public finances in Northern Ireland, but we cannot have both. Alliance has led the way on calls for changing our broken system of government in Northern Ireland. This is the Prime Minister’s chance to leave a legacy of functioning government in Northern Ireland; will he act?
The Prime Minister
I will work with the hon. Lady and her colleagues on precisely that. I was in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Secretary last week. Our first responsibility is to get Stormont government up and running and functioning properly with a budget. I have empowered the Northern Ireland Secretary to go into talks to resolve that issue, and we can continue the conversation on the broader issues about reform once we have got that in place.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend worked hard on getting those new stations. People in Portishead and Pill have waited far too long for those new stations, but they are now on the way. It does reflect what I was saying to the House yesterday: the big cities of England—I am talking about Leeds and about Bristol—should have mass transit systems. I will work with the wonderful Mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, to make progress on that—to connect Bristol, its new arena, the station and the development of Temple Meads into a mass transit system that takes Bristol forward.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is about getting a balance, isn’t it? Yes, we need to protect green belt where we can, but we also need to build the homes that people need, and it is about striking a balance. In Greater Manchester, I always took a brownfield-first approach, and that is what I will do. I have asked the Chancellor to work with my Cabinet colleagues to release more public land so that we can build more homes on brownfield land, but I understand the concerns that the hon. Member is raising. I will ask the Housing Minister to meet him, to see if we can further build some common cause, but there is a balance to be struck. I say to Conservative Members that it is important that they do not turn their face away from building the new homes this country needs.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because she speaks for many people at home, who will have been nodding away. I spoke to these issues in the Makerfield by-election, as we had an illegal waste tip, and it looked like nobody was taking any action on it. I think there is a case for going further on fireworks and regulating them. On antisocial behaviour more broadly, I supported Greater Manchester police in taking the toughest possible approach to rooting out antisocial behaviour through Operation Vulcan. I think that can be extended elsewhere. We should not accept that this is just the daily norm in communities. I happen to support the broken windows theory of policing. If we let small things go, bigger things come along, and we should change how we think about neighbourhood policing, as the Home Secretary is doing.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister
The approach I will take—we met the Deputy First Minister at Port Talbot last week—is that where proposals come from the Senedd Government, we will give them fair consideration. We need to work together to get growth going, and we need to secure the future of Port Talbot together. If that can be done with more locally devolved power across Wales, I am absolutely ready to work with the right hon. Lady and the First Minister on that.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have made that commitment, I have made it very clearly, and I have done so for a considerable time. I was in Ukraine last week for a very specific reason: to repeat it on the world stage. My hon. Friend can be absolutely sure of that. Alongside our commitment to defence, we also have to build the resilience of Britain. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of the funding committed to the defence investment plan goes back into the reindustrialisation of our communities. We should do more to maintain sovereign manufacturing and production capability here, and that will be a theme of my Government. We will make sure that British taxpayers’ money goes to supporting industry in our own country, to make us more resilient going into the future.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I have worked with the hon. Gentleman over many years, and I remember that in the coalition years he did not always take that line, and I respect him for that. I will look closely at his private Member’s Bill. How about this? I will agree here and now to a meeting with him and all Cornish MPs to discuss what we might do, alongside his Bill, to put powers and levers within the devolution deal, so as to deal with those specific issues he has just raised in relation to second homes in Cornwall.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Everyone is so excited about the return of the Bayeux tapestry, which comes back to our shores for the first time in almost 1,000 years. That is a testament to this Labour Government’s work to strengthen our relations with European neighbours. Hastings has often been at the centre of historical events, but we have not felt the benefits and we rank in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility. Thanks to my campaign, the young people I represent will get free priority access to the tapestry exhibition and not be priced out by the cost of a ticket. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is great news, and that the British Museum must do all it can to ensure as many as people from my area as possible can see the exhibition?
The Prime Minister
I will relay that very message tonight to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who runs the British Museum. I hope I will do so with the support of those on the Opposition Benches. We want the maximum number of kids to have access and to stand in front of that tapestry while it is here in the UK. It is a major moment in our island’s history and it is such a powerful one. They learn about it in school; they should be able to stand in front of it. I credit my hon. Friend for the amazing campaign she has run. I know the school children in her own constituency will be there, but I can hear in her voice that she wants that for every child in this country. Let us see what we can do.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I indicated that earlier today. Young people who can work should be working. I believe they want to work; the question is whether we have always given them the support they need. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I proudly delivered a huge increase in the work placements attached to T-levels that benefited young people and I introduced a free bus pass for 16 to 18-year-olds to connect them to opportunity. Actually, the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—was not the same in Greater Manchester as in other parts of the country, so the hon. Gentleman might want to go back and check that. Let us work to get the best possible package we can to support our young people. It is too hard growing up as it is at this moment in time; we can make things better if we do so with cross-party support. That is the best message we could send to the next generation.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Labour Government have already delivered real investment for Bedford, including our community diagnostic centre, urgent care centre and funding for the Putnoe walk-in centre. I was pleased to open Bedford’s new mental health crisis house this summer, but the in-patient mental health services that my constituents lost in 2017 have never been replaced. Will the Prime Minister commit to working with me to take the next steps towards restoring adult and young people’s in-patient mental health provision in Bedford, so that my constituents can access the right care in the right place at the right time?
The Prime Minister
That last point is the point. We have to do better on mental health services, and the Health Secretary absolutely agrees. That is why we committed in the summer to community-based mental health provision: to make it easier for people to access that provision. I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about Bedford hospital. I will work with the Health Secretary to address them with him.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Prime Minister
No borrowing to fund day-to-day spending, debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the Parliament, and yes, we will.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
In my constituency and across the country, we suffered devastating wildfires this summer. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the action that he took, including the temporary ban on disposable barbecues, but we must face the fact that our climate is changing and communities such as mine are suffering the consequences. What more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and tackle wildfires next summer, and will that include making the ban on disposable barbecues permanent?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend was an important voice during the summer. I am aware of the problems in his constituency on the border of Greater Manchester, and they are problems that we have seen for a number of years. He was right to mention the need for a ban on disposable barbecues but, more broadly, this is a bigger challenge, so I am going to call a wildfire summit, which he will be welcome to attend.
Our fire and rescue services are not set up properly for the changing climate. We do not have the most modern equipment, we do not have the same aerial support to tackle wildfires that we see in France, Italy and other countries, and dealing with the flooding that is expected in the latter part of this year is not even a statutory responsibility of the fire and rescue services. If my hon. Friend will join me at that summit, we can make further progress.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
That is exactly what I mean when I talk about supporting an industrial transition so that we can reindustrialise Scotland and other parts of the country. It must be done in a pragmatic way so that we can make the transition work rather than being too ideological about it, as other parties are, so I will work with the hon. Gentleman. I intend to visit Scotland soon to look in detail at the issues in the Aberdeen community, because I know that people have struggled with the impact of transition. Let us see what we can do to build common cause, and let us also look at Grangemouth, which could be the home of sustainable aviation fuel. I am interested in making progress on all those issues, and I will work with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his first Prime Minister’s questions; this is my first Prime Minister’s question too.
I want to declare an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK. The campaign for lifelong sex education that I launched with Cindy Gallop has received a tremendous response and support from many, including professionals in occupational health, medicine, nursing, public health and academia, the National Education Union and the police. I have discovered that the shame, guilt and embarrassment around talking about sex—and body parts like penis and vagina—are even leading to late diagnoses of health conditions including illnesses such as cancer for many people in my South Derbyshire constituency and across the country. I have discussed that with the Eve Appeal and with my constituent Louise Clarke, a GP who specialises in cancer of the vulva; they are really great for my campaign. As September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, and as the summer of sex comes to a close, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to talk about the campaign?
The Prime Minister
I will indeed. My hon. Friend has been raising important issues that others have not spoken about—and it is clear to me that her summer was more exciting than mine. [Laughter.]
Rewiring the State
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State (Louise Haigh)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the work of the newly formed Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the change it will bring.
On the steps of Downing Street six weeks ago, the Prime Minister set out the priorities that will guide this Government. He was clear that 40 years of overly centralised decision making and over-privatisation have stripped power and resources away from communities in every nation and region of this country; that public control over the things that matter so much to people’s lives has been systematically eroded and become a barrier to businesses wanting to start and grow; and that a broken economic and political model has cost good jobs and opportunities in many parts of the country, while delivering sky-high prices in exchange for poorer customer services.
The Prime Minister was clear that this Government will be the circuit breaker that our country needs: a Government who will take power from Westminster and Whitehall, and put it in the hands of the communities who are best placed to use it; who will rewire Britain, so that our politics and our economy work for every person and every place. On a bedrock of fiscal discipline, we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy that delivers good growth in every postcode.
We have wasted no time in delivering on that commitment. In the newly formed Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we are rewiring the machinery of government so that the Prime Minister has the resources and levers he needs to deliver on his priorities. By stripping out many of the bureaucratic functions of the office, we have created a stronger, more focused Department that is capable of driving forward the Prime Minister’s agenda. This Government recognise that for far too long there has been a disconnect between the Cabinet Office and No. 10, and it is that lack of joined-up thinking that has hampered the ability of successive Prime Ministers to drive forward their own agendas across Government.
We have had a dichotomy at the heart of Government: the most centralised state in the G20, with one of the most underpowered centres. In the newly established OPMC, we are ensuring that the Prime Minister has the support and resources he needs to deliver the change that the public are impatient to see. From that office, we will drive forward work across Government to put the essentials, such as water, transport, energy and housing, under greater public control, in order to regenerate our communities, breathe new life into our high streets and give people more room to breathe through action on the cost of living.
That work of change has begun. Working closely with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, we have begun the work of shifting power and resources away from Whitehall. Through our devolution blueprint and the establishment of No. 10 North, we have created a new engine of regional economic growth that will empower places that have been overlooked by Westminster for too long. We are granting new powers to strategic authorities to take more control over the future of their regions: a greater share of locally generated revenues, beginning with business rates; and more control over housing, public transport and infrastructure. For the first time, local leaders will have the power and resources they need to invest in the things that matter most to their communities.
This Government are filling in the map to bring an end to the system of two-tier devolution, so that by the end of 2028 we are able to extend to all parts of England the same offer that the rest have enjoyed for many years. This is how we can empower communities, drive local economic growth, create new jobs and deliver maximum benefit to the people who live there. This is devolution by design and devolution by default, and by working across Government we will build a new economic model that begins to put life’s essentials back under stronger public control and make them affordable for people again.
Working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson)—and building on the strong foundations laid down by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), whom I thank for his work—we are delivering a once-in-a-generation rebalancing of power in this country. This is what a rewired state looks like: one that is relentlessly focused on delivering for the people of this country, with empowered communities and good growth in every postcode. These are the tests against which our decisions will be measured and the metrics by which our actions will be judged.
Last month, the Chancellor and I announced reforms to public procurement that will cut red tape and unleash a new wave of British job creation. Too often, small and medium-sized businesses have struggled to navigate complicated procurement processes that seem to prioritise everything. When we prioritise everything, we prioritise nothing, so we are making the process simpler and doing things differently. From next year, businesses seeking to win a share of £90 billion in central Government contracts will be left in no doubt about what we want from them: creating good jobs and giving young people the skills they need for the future. These new rules will ensure that the £90 billion spent each year through Government contracts supports British jobs, skills and people in every postcode.
We are going further in our reforms to public procurement to ensure that taxpayers’ money is delivering more for our communities. For the first time since 2020, we are removing the defence exemption from social value. That means billions of pounds of defence contracts will soon give weighting to jobs and skills for young people across Britain. This is how we back businesses in every part of the country. In my ministerial colleagues, Parliamentary Secretaries to the Cabinet Office my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) and for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), businesses looking to build and grow here in Britain—creating those good jobs and driving that good growth—will have strong advocates in this Government.
The work of my Department in strengthening our national resilience and co-ordinating the Government’s response to emergencies remains central. Over the summer, we saw communities across the country impacted by unprecedented wildfires precipitated by one of the hottest and driest summers on record—a reminder of the very real and present threats to the UK posed by climate change. During the third week of August, four major incidents were declared across south Wales, Hampshire, Cambridgeshire and the west midlands. By 13 August, fire and rescue services were tackling 47 wildfire incidents, and 79 separate requests for additional equipment and resources were made by fire and rescue services. In south Wales alone, more than 200 military personnel were deployed to tackle 14 separate incidents.
Such was the extent of support provided across the country that almost every service was impacted or involved in the response, and some of the most stretched services faced the prospect of having to deprioritise certain call-outs due to the pressures on the system. The day before the national alert was issued, close to 12,000 999 calls were recorded in a single day, which is six times the average call volume. Many services were stretched to breaking point, but continued to work around the clock to protect lives, communities and properties. I am sure everyone in the House will join me in thanking our emergency services and military personnel, who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe.
On 14 August, when the Government received direct requests from fire and rescue services for urgent Government intervention, we took decisive action. A national emergency alert was issued to provide the public with clear guidance on the steps they should take to avoid inadvertently contributing to an already dangerous situation. It should come as no surprise that the British public did their bit. Within 48 hours, there was a 42% decrease in the number of 999 calls, falling from 12,000 to 5,200, and by Monday morning the number of live wildfire incidents had fallen from 47 to 27. This gave our fire and rescue services the breathing space they needed to tackle existing fires and keep us all safe.
Over the coming weeks, I will continue to work closely with Cabinet colleagues to ensure the Government’s response meets the scale of the challenges we face. I will also be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security in ensuring that this Government take a long-term and strategic approach to the country’s preparedness. The Government will continue to work closely with our frontline services and local resilience forums to mitigate the risks posed by extreme weather and drought, including a £100 million increase in funding for the fire services and a £65 million boost in support of our farmers.
In the interests of brevity, I will touch briefly on the work that is happening elsewhere in my Department. I have been delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan) not only to his role as the Minister for Artificial Intelligence, but to join us around the Cabinet table. The Prime Minister has been clear that he sees harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence as a central part of our country’s future, and the elevation of this role reflects the ambition this Government have to make Britain a world leader in these advanced technologies.
I am also pleased to welcome the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations to his role. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) has wasted no time in the vital work of building stronger ties with our closest neighbours and allies. I was very grateful to him for interrupting his honeymoon to come home and be appointed to the post.
My Department is also bringing forward a programme to modernise the operation of the state. We are taking public control of the way Government work—cutting out the unnecessary processes and needless reviews that slow decision making and stifle innovation. At the heart of this agenda will be the restoration of Ministers’ responsibility and agency to deliver the change they promise, with increased accountability to Parliament and the public for the direction they set and the decisions they take. We will bring forward new methods of public deliberation in policy development and do away with box-ticking consultation with the usual suspects. Fewer decisions will be delegated to unelected bodies, and the way decisions are made will be scrutinised in Parliament, not in the courts, ending the warm bath of constructive ambiguity that politics has been too happy to soak in for far too long.
I am aware—I am deeply honoured—that I am the first woman to hold the role of First Secretary of State since the late, great Barbara Castle. I am confident that if I can channel even a fraction of the energy and determination that she brought to this role, collectively we can change our country for the better. For too long, too many places have been written out of our national story; their contribution ignored and their potential overlooked. People feel like the system just does not work for them. That is why in 2024 they voted for change. This Government are on a mission to ensure we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s and the public’s priorities. This is a collective endeavour, and together we will deliver the lasting change that people deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. I congratulate her on her appointment—it is a major achievement—and I look forward to working with her.
I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on the wording of her statement. The phrase “rewiring the state” was first coined by the Leader of the Opposition in her leadership contest in the summer of 2024, and for a very good reason. The state does need rewiring; we agree on that. It is in urgent need of rewiring. It needs rewiring so that politicians can make decisions, it needs rewiring so that elected Governments can fulfil their mandates speedily, and it needs rewiring so that the state does not continue to grow ad infinitum.
I know that the new Administration delight in nothing more than criticising the Blair Government. There were many reasons to criticise the Blair Government, but I wish to talk about just three: the first is quangos, the second is the nature of the Treasury and the third is the issue of legal constraint. Some of the worst of these problems are those of entrenched institutional inertia. We have seen over time how quangos have led to Ministers having less agency over important decisions that affect our constituents’ lives, so it is unfortunate that the deputy Prime Minister has today announced the creation of a massive new quango in the OneGov Delivery Agency. It will be in charge of Government recruitment, the civil service, pensions, shared services, security vetting, and so on. It will oversee the spending of considerable public money. It is a step in the wrong direction, because Ministers will retain responsibility for those services, but they will lose power over them.
One of the reasons we have seen a proliferation of arm’s length bodies is that they have become a way of dodging excessive bureaucracy put on by the centre. In this instance, by the centre I really mean the Treasury. In its modern form, the Treasury is the behemoth created by Gordon Brown and designed to control Whitehall and to reduce departmental Ministers’ authority over their spend and their decisions. I was therefore genuinely interested to hear the right hon. Lady say over the summer that the Treasury was an “imperial finance department”. I had rather hoped that she was going to lead the charge to smash the barricades and destroy this terrible imperial power, but instead it appears that the empire has struck back. The briefing we were given initially was that No. 10 North was going to take control of growth. That seems to have been watered down. It is now rumoured that the Chancellor will give the speech on growth next week, and that the real power remains within No. 11 south. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what powers, levers and budget she will have, as head of No. 10 North, to increase growth across the UK?
Legal constraint is obviously a massive problem. Over the Blair years, laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and environmental legislation created endless sources of judicial review, which made it increasingly difficult for Government to do things—to build infrastructure and so on. That is a colossal drag on the capabilities of the state. If the right hon. Lady wishes to work on that, the Conservatives would be happy to work with her.
In the statement, we heard a further exposition on devolution and the merits of No. 10 North. For that to be credible, the Government need to be able to give three basic guarantees. The first is that this will lead to an overall reduction in the size of the civil service. Despite promises made after the election, the opposite has happened under Labour; since the general election, the headcount of the civil service has risen by over 11,000. Will that be reduced, and by when? The second guarantee is on the nature of devolution—whether it is driven by the interests of local people, or just by those of one party. Over the summer, Labour councillors were allowed to redraw the boundaries of the authorities that they hope to represent, and to do so before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission. Labour set about the biggest reorganisation of local government in 50 years with no mandate to do so, and announced it on the day before recess, with no scrutiny. One wonders how it can be localism if it is imposed—and imposed with constraints.
Also over the summer, after the Prime Minister had made his interesting announcement about assigned income tax and retained business rates, the Mayor of the Tees Valley, Lord Houchen, said that he would create
“a new rebate scheme to put money back into people’s pockets and let families keep more of the money they earn.”
It is an excellent idea—an excellent Conservative idea—so excellent that it was immediately shot down by the deputy Prime Minister. Will she tell us whether combined authority mayors will be able to cut taxes or give rebates, so that working people can keep more of their money—or will this just lead to higher taxes? Otherwise, it appears that local mayors will not have the freedom to cut taxes; they will only have the freedom to increase them. They will only have the freedom to increase the size of the state, not reduce it. It appears that this Government are rewiring the state—but just to grow it.
The last point is simply about cost. How much is this reorganisation costing? How much is being spent on No. 10 North? How much will need to be spent in order to power the localisation agenda that this Administration have put forward? Where is that money coming from? Is it coming from other Departments, in which case, from where, or is it coming from tax, and if so, which taxes? If it is coming from borrowing—well, I think the bond markets will have something to say about that. Until the Government can show that they are able to cut taxes and spending, so that we can get real growth across the country, I am afraid that all of this will just be another northern pipe-dream.
Louise Haigh
The Prime Minister set out how he plans to cut tax on the very first day of his premiership. I thank the shadow Secretary for his kind words. My title is First Secretary of State; he may wish to be the shadow deputy Prime Minister, but that would not be shadowing me.
I am glad that we can find common ground. I will start with the cost of No. 10 North, which I imagine the hon. Gentleman knows already, given the sheer quantity of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests that have come in over the summer. No. 10 North has been fully funded from existing Cabinet Office budgets, with no additional spending pressure. We are grateful to colleagues in Manchester for hosting us in Heron House so graciously; that is working exceptionally well.
I absolutely agree—I hope we can work together on this—with the hon. Gentleman on looking at where we can streamline the state and ensuring that elected Governments of any stripe can make the decisions that they have been elected to take. There is an awful lot of common ground and frustration that people from across this House share about unelected regulators and quangos standing in the way of democratically elected politicians. There is a serious commitment from this Government to tearing away that red tape and ensuring that we can deliver the change that we were elected to deliver. I therefore gently point out the irony in his asking me to ensure that a quango, the Local Government Boundary Commission, takes decisions on local government reorganisation, rather than the democratically elected Communities Secretary.
We have already been clear that the central civil service is expected to shrink, that we want it to be more streamlined and efficient, and that our commitment to devolution and rewiring the state absolutely means fewer civil servants at the centre and building the capacity and capability of regional and local government. Local government was a huge victim of the decade of austerity, which held back growth in our local economies.
We are moving policy functions out of the Cabinet Office in order to streamline things and ensure that we can be ruthlessly committed to delivering the Prime Minister’s priorities; I make no apologies for that. We have transferred a number of strategic functions into No. 10 North, including local economic growth and devolution strategy, which we have moved from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and local economic growth policy, which we have moved from the Treasury; that is a little bit of a chip at its empire.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I offer two congratulations: first, to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the First Secretary, on her well-deserved promotion—I am sure she will do an excellent job. Secondly, I congratulate her and the Prime Minister for their real commitment to devolution, which I have wanted to see for an awfully long time. I hope it is devolution to local councils, as first-tier authorities, as well as to strategic authorities.
One area that has not been covered so far is education. The First Secretary is probably aware that in five wards in my constituency with high levels of deprivation, there is not a single sixth form. Responsibility for that rests totally with academy trusts, and the local council has no power or influence over it whatsoever. When she looks again at devolution to bodies with democratic control, could she look at the education system? That will be key to tackling the problem of those not in education, employment or training.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and my constituency shares that exact same problem: in the east, there are fewer sixth-form options than in the wealthier west of the constituency. That is huge issue for educational inequality for our constituents, and I will take it away and look at it with the Education Secretary. My hon. Friend will also note that we have committed to devolution of 16-to-19 funding as well.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the First Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and warmly welcome her to her place. The Liberal Democrats strongly agree that the political system is overly centralised. We believe that the best decisions are taken closest to the people they affect, but renewing communities must also mean giving councils the powers and resources that they need to revitalise our high streets, support independent businesses and improve local public services. After years of severe financial pressure, devolution cannot simply mean transferring responsibilities from Whitehall without the funding necessary to deliver them.
The First Secretary mentioned national resilience. That is about whether the lights stay on, whether the shelves stay stocked, and whether a family in Hazel Grove can get through a week or more of serious destruction without losing their livelihood. The covid inquiry was blunt: it found that we were ill prepared for an emergency, never mind a pandemic. Those failures cost lives, and people deserve to know that lessons have been acted on, rather than filed away.
There is certainly progress to welcome. We have the resilience action plan, the UK Resilience Academy, and Exercise Pegasus, which was the largest pandemic exercise this country has ever run. Those are steps that my party has long called for, but announcements are not preparedness. I would welcome hearing from the First Secretary what plans she has to improve public awareness and understanding of what the whole of society needs to do to be ready. We are in an increasingly uncertain world, so will the Government think again on digital sovereignty, so that the critical systems that our constituents rely on are not dependent on suppliers that this country cannot control?
I strongly agree with the First Secretary that this country has a broken political system. Later this afternoon, we will debate the Representation of the People Bill, which is meant to fix that. It takes some steps in the right direction, but fails to rise to the moment. Does she agree that there is still so much more to do, starting with halting the scourge of big money that is poisoning our democracy by capping political donations and bringing in a fairer voting system? We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the country. I have heard her talk previously in this House about moving fast and fixing things. I urge her to crack on.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I can confirm that my motto of moving fast and fixing things is still firmly in place. She is absolutely right that in order to deliver devolution effectively and deliver the growth and improved public services that we need, resource and revenue are needed. We have committed to allowing strategic authorities to take a share of income tax and business rates, so that they are incentivised to grow their economies, and can take their fair share to reinvest in those economies.
On digital sovereignty, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Artificial Intelligence is looking at that, through his taskforce. It is one of the important workstreams that he is considering with colleagues across Government. I am sure that he will update the House in due course.
As the hon. Lady says, we will debate the elections Bill this afternoon. She and I absolutely share a commitment to stopping big money, and foreign money in particular, interfering in our politics. I will work with colleagues across Government through the defending democracy taskforce, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Security Minister, to look at what further steps we can take beyond the Bill.
Finally, on preparedness, my predecessor announced in July that we will deliver a campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps that households can take to keep themselves safe during everyday emergencies, like extreme weather. We will announce more information and begin that campaign later this year.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Lancashire has missed out on Government investment for decades, and my constituents in South Ribble have been treated to nothing but the scraps of investment left in the pot at the end of the year. We now have an opportunity like no other in generations. Lancashire needs devolution and an elected mayor. Will the First Secretary of State facilitate an urgent meeting for me and Lancashire colleagues with No. 10 North to unlock this desperately needed opportunity for real investment and prosperity in Lancashire?
Louise Haigh
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for that settlement for Lancashire. He is absolutely right that it is the way to deliver power and resources for his community and unlock its potential. I am sure that you agree, Mr Speaker. No. 10 North will be extremely busy, given the number of requests that are pouring in, but I will make sure that my hon. Friend is top of the queue.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I congratulate the First Secretary of State and welcome her to a very important role in government. I agree with a number of things that she said, particularly about strengthening the role of No. 10. However, there is a large gap in this statement on rewiring the state, and that is to do with civil service reform. There are many excellent civil servants, but I am afraid that it remains a classic 80:20 model; 20% of exceptionally good civil servants do about 80% of the work. If we are really to rewire the state, we need to look at that and not only empower that 20% to deliver more, but find savings from the headcount among the 80%. If the Secretary of State really wants to rewire the state, I urge her to grasp this nettle while she looks at the entire picture.
Louise Haigh
A significant programme of civil service reform is under way, led by the Cabinet Secretary. That programme has already begun reforming the civil service recruitment system to ensure that it hires and promotes truly brilliant people. It is reviewing the talent strategy to develop and grow talent right across the civil service and the whole UK, and is launching capability reviews to assess departmental delivery. It is identifying areas for improvement and building on the successful transformation already under way through the Places for Growth programme. However, I absolutely agree that we need to go further.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Over recess, a number of disturbing cases of artificial intelligence agents escaping control of their owners and undertaking unauthorised activity became public. In one case, 1,200 agents collaborated on an unsanctioned message board before 700 of them engaged in an attack on the company Hugging Face. Can the First Secretary confirm that following the governmental rewiring that she has described, her Department will be responsible for dealing with risks from so-called AI misalignment, and given the lack of frontier model controls, will she introduce regulation in this area, and co-ordinate with international partners on this matter?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that she has done on this issue—I know that she is extremely expert in this area. Work is ongoing, with mobilised action across Government and industry, asking Cabinet Ministers to work directly with regulators and supply chains and writing to UK businesses with clear steps to strengthen their cyber-defences. The National Cyber Security Centre has engaged with more than a thousand stakeholders in the wake of Mythos’s release to galvanise action and share best practice. She is absolutely right that over the summer, during a routine cyber-evaluation, the AI Security Institute identified an incident in which AI agents took sustained unsanctioned action that was directed at real people and organisations. It was detected within an hour. We have been completely transparent about the incident, and we have immediately learned lessons from it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place—it is great to see her back on the Treasury Bench. I also welcome the creation of the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that in a centralised system it was the most underpowered organisation imaginable, and it needed some turbocharging.
I hope that the First Secretary will agree that rewiring has to be a process, not an event. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will remember the great fanfare with which mission-led government was talked about a couple of years ago, before it died a rather slow, lamentable death. Can she assure us that she has both the personal energy and commitment to see this through to the end, as well as the support and resources around her in order to achieve it?
I echo the call from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the importance of looking at quangos and arm’s length bodies, particularly within the devolution and decision-making space, because too many of them have got out of control. I also echo the point about outsourcing, because outsourcing takes away a lot of agency from local communities and individuals, and that needs to be looked at with some urgency.
Louise Haigh
Mr Speaker, I am loving all the common ground that we are finding with Opposition Members today. I completely agree that we need to look at outsourcing across Government. The previous Administration already took significant steps to reduce spend on consultancy and began the work on the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, as promised in our manifesto. I have worked with the hon. Gentleman in the past, and he has witnessed my energy up close. He can be assured of my continued commitment to this agenda.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I begin by welcoming my right hon. Friend to her place and wish her every success in her new role. I thank her for this statement and for this Government’s renewed focus on reindustrialisation in the UK, bringing opportunity and economic growth to every corner of the UK. With everything pushing towards increased manufacturing and construction, personal protective equipment is more important than ever as the last line of defence between workers and hazardous materials and incidents. The state has a role to play here; it can lead by example and ensure that every worker gets the protection they need to do their job safely. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss public sector procurement specifications and BS 30417 on inclusive PPE?
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her sustained campaign in this area. I know that she has done an extraordinary amount of work in continuing to raise issues around PPE when they have fallen out of the public spotlight post covid. The Minister responsible for procurement will be delighted to meet her to discuss this issue.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For my Torbay constituents, and indeed all constituents in Devon and Cornwall, No. 10 North is actually two hours further away than No. 10 Downing Street. Although we Liberal Democrats genuinely welcome devolution that brings power closer to people, I represent a constituency that has high levels of deprivation. Can the First Secretary of State advise me on how the Government’s reforms will support areas such as mine in particular?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The reforms that have been proposed through the devolution blueprint and Cabinet statement are designed to address exactly that issue. For too long, devolution has been two-tier, allowing certain areas of the country to steam ahead while others have not been given the powers and resources that they deserve. Devon and Cornwall will be incentivised with potential powers and resources, including the overnight visitor levy. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister mention his trip to Cornwall and engagement with the authorities there, including Devon. I appreciate that it is a long journey to Manchester—it is quite an irritating trip even from Sheffield, to be honest—but I hope that he will engage with No. 10 North on this important issue so that we can deliver for his constituents.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this role; I have no doubt that she will do a wonderful job. I was particularly interested in what she said about her Department strengthening national resilience, which will remain central. We have just had the hottest summer on record. This country was built for a climate that no longer exists, as we were told on the Environmental Audit Committee, and 2,500 people are estimated to have died this summer as a result. Diabetics, asthmatics, the very old and the very young are particularly at threat.
Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to bring forward the new national adaptation plan? The national adaptation plan 3 under the previous Government was widely derided, but there is currently no plan for a new one until 2028, and it is clear that the pressures we are facing in summer are worse than ever before. Can she tell us whether there will be a new national adaptation plan or, if not, what she is going to do to ensure that we are better prepared next summer than we were this summer?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued work in this important area and on the environment. Tackling the threats posed by climate change requires consistent and co-ordinated action across every Department. From £710 million to fund upgrades to our school estate to the construction of nine new reservoirs across the country, this Government are taking the necessary steps to ensure that our country is more resilient and our communities are kept safe. He will have heard the Prime Minister refer to an upcoming wildfire summit. I hope that he will participate fully in that. I will return to him on our commitment on the national adaptation plan.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Normally when functions and roles are devolved from London to another area, we see a diminution in the capital and an increase in the area concerned. There is an obvious danger of duplication by having a No. 10 North and a No. 10 South, so will the First Secretary, whom I congratulate on her appointment, be transparent about this and agree that the public should be able to see how many people are working permanently in No. 10 North, how many are working permanently in No. 10 South, and how many are going back and forth between the two?
Louise Haigh
The right hon. Gentleman is right that traditionally the model of moving people or roles out of London has meant duplication in the centre. That is exactly what we are attempting to fix. We want new senior roles across the country. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who created the Darlington campus. That campus is a proper model of delivery, with senior policy making and civil servants in Darlington, based around the Treasury there. It has helped to deliver and change decision making, and that is exactly what No. 10 North is attempting to do.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the steps taken by the First Secretary to ensure that strategic authorities such as Cornwall have the capacity to deliver on our growth agenda, but I want to ask specifically what steps she has taken to ensure that both national and local government have the financial analytical capability to identify those most promising investment cases and help shepherd them towards success.
Louise Haigh
It is an excellent question and something that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), who sits in the Treasury as well as the Cabinet Office, has been working on through No. 10 North. We are planning a brand of civil service reform that will move civil servants from the centre to regional and local government in order to share expertise, and we will provide them with the AI and data expertise that we have at the centre in order to do exactly that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Can I remind the First Secretary that during this summer my constituency experienced the extensive Cairngorms wildfire? It was a major incident in difficult terrain that destroyed around 20 square miles of iconic hillside and forestry, threatened homes and businesses, and required the efforts of over 500 firefighters and volunteers.
There are actions required of the UK Government, the devolved Governments and numerous public agencies and landowners, and I am pressing all of them on these issues. With the risk growing, my ask of the First Secretary is that the lack of military aerial firefighting capability within the UK be urgently reviewed, so that aerial assistance can be provided in these extreme and often prolonged incidents. What work is being done with our European neighbours in respect of mutual aid in tackling wildfires? We must recognise that exceptional local effort cannot be a substitute for national and international preparedness.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. My thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected in his constituency by the wildfire. Some £100 million has already been invested in fire and rescue services, and we will continue to look at the issues that he raises to do with equipment in future Budgets. We are engaging with our European neighbours on exactly this issue, and we are well aware of the opportunities that arise from it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the First Secretary to her place, and I thank her for making her first constituency visit to Portsmouth North and the fantastic Griffon Marine. As Portsmouth is a coastal city, residents are rightly furious that Southern Water continues to pump sewage into our seas. We have had hardly any rain this summer, yet sewage pollution and rising bills continue while private companies make profits. It is abundantly clear that privatisation under the Tories has failed the British public again and again. Could the First Secretary of State set out a little more detail of the Government’s plans to reform the industry and give the public greater control over our water companies?
Louise Haigh
It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend and announce our procurement reforms at Griffon Marine in her constituency. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly clear that more public control of our water industry is not just desired but absolutely necessary. The current system, with the poor infrastructure, investment, higher water bills and the kind of sewage, leakage and poor quality that she described, can continue no longer. We will set out our plans for reform shortly.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place, and I am sure that she will be very effective at this job. On the issue of wildfires, may I urge her to talk to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is putting further constraints on moorland owners? Moorland owners have traditionally undertaken controlled burning, and they are really worried at the moment that this change in DEFRA policy will make moorland areas such as the one I represent more vulnerable to wildfires in the future?
Louise Haigh
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically constructive and thoughtful contribution. I will, of course, raise that with DEFRA and look into the specific issue on his behalf.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. The greatest shift of power in rewiring this country we have seen started in Rochdale in 1844, when the Rochdale pioneers came together and created and inspired a worldwide movement. We now have our first ever Labour and Co-operative Prime Minister and an historic commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual economy, highlighting the vital role of double devolution, which is not just about giving power to institutions; it is also about giving power directly to people to take part in creating their own solutions and power in their communities. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the machinery of government and its ability to deliver on this fantastic ambition?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend has put it incredibly poetically—better than I ever could. He is absolutely right that the machinery of government and the culture across Whitehall need to be challenged. The Prime Minister has been clear that this Government will bring about an end to local and regional government coming to Whitehall with a begging bowl. Whitehall and the Government as a whole have been told in no uncertain terms that they will now be required to justify why policies are not devolved, rather than the other way around.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The transition to clean energy could be an opportunity to build a different model that would, to use the First Secretary of State’s own words, end
“overly centralised decision making and over-privatisation”.
Development thus far has simply concentrated power in the hands of the big corporates and left communities feeling left behind and disempowered. In Shetland, we host one of the largest onshore wind farms in the country, but we have the highest levels of fuel poverty, and last year the developer SSE was paid £9 million in constraint payments not to generate electricity—that is regulatory madness. In this rewired state, will the communities that host renewable energy developments have control and get direct financial benefit from them?
Louise Haigh
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of really important and interesting issues that will be considered as we look to greater public control of our energy system. Local and community control is central to the Prime Minister’s vision for public control, and that “madness”, as the right hon. Gentleman described it, is something that will drive our energy reforms.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and welcome today’s statement as well as the one in July. The first English devolution settlement was, of course, for London, and despite some incremental improvements since 1999, our capital’s mayor, the Greater London Authority and the 32 London boroughs are not currently set up to deliver on the capital’s full potential, whether on productivity and growth or in dealing with our housing crisis and the massive increase in temporary accommodation spending to combat homelessness. Will revisiting London’s devolution settlement will be on her and her team’s agenda?
Louise Haigh
The Mayor of London has been involved in continued talks through No. 10 North on the devolution settlement. We will continue to consider what further powers and resources London deserves.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I congratulate the First Secretary of State on her appointment. Will she confirm to me and to the House that the intergovernmental relations responsibilities in her Department will be given the weight they require? Indeed, part of that is about making the case for the continuance of the United Kingdom. We have three First Ministers across the United Kingdom whose position is that they want to break up the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government have already brought forward a time-wasting and unnecessary Bill to hold another divisive independence referendum. It is vital that the Government play their part in pushing back against independence in Scotland and elsewhere, and making the case for the United Kingdom.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has been clear repeatedly that we stand against Scottish independence and against an independence referendum. We will continue to make the case for the Union. That responsibility will be held very highly, importantly and closely by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the First Secretary of State to her place, particularly as she has smashed another glass ceiling by being the first woman to hold the role. In her statement, she talked about wildfires. There was not one in Monmouthshire per se, but they were all around the edge of Monmouthshire, and there was a lot of smoke in houses in Abergavenny. I therefore really look forward to the summit she will hold on wildfires.
One thing that the First Secretary of State did not mention and which I would like to draw her attention to is civil service pensions. I have a huge number of constituents who are waiting. I know that that issue comes under her Department, and I would really like her support on it.
Louise Haigh
May I be absolutely clear that the service levels for the civil service pension scheme following the move to Capita have been completely unacceptable? Our immediate priority is to stabilise the service and give current and former civil servants the service they deserve. We are using all our commercial levers, including withholding payments, to hold Capita to account for its failure, and we will continue to do so until service levels are fully restored. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), will shortly update the House on further progress.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This summer, we have seen extreme heat and prolonged drought, with far too many people losing their lives in heatwaves, huge pressures on farming and many wildfires. We are unlikely to have another cooler summer than this year, and we need to be prepared for an ever-warming world. That requires a cross-Government approach. While there has been lots of talk of a No. 10 for the north—and devolution is welcome—does the First Secretary of State recognise that we could have a No. 10 for the future in the form of a climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office, which is needed to drive the cross-Government approach we must have to keep people safe?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is right that we have to learn to live with the new normal we have experienced over the summer. Cobra is the right team within the Department to co-ordinate activity across Government. We have worked closely with the Environment Agency, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Met Office and others in response to the extreme heat we have seen and to prepare for future summers.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the First Secretary of State had to say about using No. 10 North to drive a pro-business culture, empower communities and deliver growth in every postcode. In Mid Derbyshire, we have one of the best projects to help her and the Government meet that aspiration in the regeneration of the Belper mills. That will bring 130 new homes to the Derwent valley and a visitor centre, where we have a UNESCO world heritage site. We are so close to securing investment from the East Midlands combined county authority to make this happen. Can she help me by offering a meeting at No. 10 North with its staff to ensure that we get that investment over the line to build the homes we need and deliver growth in Mid Derbyshire?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is right to champion that important development. I would be delighted to facilitate a meeting for him in No. 10 North.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the First Secretary of State’s exercise in delivering democracy and local accountability and empowering local people include a look at large organisations that cannot be described as governmental or as quangos but that nevertheless exist firmly within the public domain, are established by statute, serve the public and are big employers, and in which the public have a direct interest, such as the National Trust? That is ripe for review—it is meant to be reviewed periodically—and it would certainly fall within the scope of the work she has been talking about.
Louise Haigh
I will take that point away. We have already made significant progress in our review on closing or merging arm’s length bodies, including NHS England and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. We know that we need to go further, and we will close or merge those where that is justified as part of our plans to rewire Whitehall. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue he raises.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Government work at pace to move power out of Westminster and into our communities, I am keen for Bracknell to get a share of that. That is why I support devolution for the Thames valley. The First Secretary of State will know that leaders across Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Swindon have written to her setting out their ambition for a mayoral strategic authority. That is excellent progress, but we have been here before and I do not want to see us lose the momentum. Will she set up a meeting for herself and her No. 10 North team with leaders and MPs from across the region so that we can sign on the dotted line, get this agreed and finally get the devolution that the Thames valley so badly needs?
Louise Haigh
It is fantastic to hear my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm. We have set ourselves such a tight deadline exactly to ensure that we fill in the map of the whole of England and do not lose the momentum of this moment. I would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues from the Thames valley to sign on the dotted line.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I, too, warmly welcome the First Secretary of State to her place. Last month, my constituents experienced wildfires, including the major incident in the parish of Salford Priors where Warwickshire fire and rescue service worked through extremely challenging conditions to protect homes and save lives. I pay tribute to all the firefighters, ambulance crew and those from the local community who assisted. Given the increasing frequency of heatwaves and drought and the severity of wildfires, particularly in rural areas where access to water is challenging and gaining access to burning fields is difficult, will she tell the House what urgent actions are being taken to better protect rural communities, farmland and natural habitats from future wildfire risk?
Louise Haigh
I again send my thoughts and sympathies to those affected by the wildfire in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The Prime Minister set out funding over the summer specifically for farmers in relation to resilience. We have awarded £100 million to the fire service and will co-ordinate a wildfire summit on where we need to go further, more details of which will be announced in the near future.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her earlier comments about the wildfires this summer. Staffordshire fire and rescue service saw more than 600 outdoor fires in July alone. That does not include any of those that happened in August. It is important that, in this place, we recognise the bravery of those firefighters who were out there day in, day out. Every human instinct, on looking at the wall of flame they were faced with, tells us to run the other way, but those men and women went out there day after day, ran towards danger and kept our communities safe. I thank them.
Will the First Secretary of State ensure that the voice of firefighters is at the heart of preparing for the changing climate and that they get what they need to protect our communities? I make particular reference to retained firefighters. I am aware of retained firefighters in Staffs who did an eight or 10-hour shift fighting wildfires, went home, got in the shower and went to their day job. They are absolute heroes and deserve all our respect. If we can make sure that their voices are at the heart of the response, that would be a very good thing.
Louise Haigh
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his words and praise. My grandfather was a firefighter in Chesterfield, so I join my hon. Friend in sending our thanks and gratitude to the heroes who kept us safe over the summer. He is right to draw attention to the fact that so many fires, which did not even make the news, were being quietly fought by them on our behalf. We will ensure that their voice is central to the work we do as we prepare for future summers.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Following on from that point about firefighters, one of the wildfires among the major incidents the First Secretary of State referred to in her statement was in Cambridgeshire at Holme Fen nature reserve, to which up to 20 fire engines responded, along with 150 firefighters from as far afield as Merseyside, Durham and Devon and Somerset. My thanks go to all those firefighters who assisted Cambridgeshire fire and rescue in tackling that dangerous peat fire.
Will the First Secretary of State explain how the £100 million that she referred to will be allocated? Is it a one-off payment, or is it an uplift to the current funding formula, which needs to be updated for fire and rescue? Will she give a little more detail on the asset refresh programme and whether the assets that firefighters are crucially in need of will be allocated quickly?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the fire service. The £100 million has already been allocated, so that will have been done under the existing funding formula. Future allocations will be determined at the Budget.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I want to ask about devolution and transport. Since we introduced Transport and Works Act orders in the 1990s, we have dramatically decreased the number of new tramlines, which we know are a big driver of local growth, being built in the UK. France has a mass rapid transit system in every town and city with a population of over 150,000 people, yet Leeds is the biggest place in western Europe without any mass rapid transit system at all. Will the First Secretary please tell us what powers she will push downwards to combined authorities to allow them to build new tramlines, and how she will make that a success?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I have seen it for myself in places as small as Dijon in France, which have incredibly well-functioning integrated transport systems that include tram networks. That is in large part because they are able to raise and keep revenue themselves and continue to invest it in their transport networks. We are removing the veto on decision making for transport infrastructure and devolving a number of powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will speed up the delivery of mass transit networks. My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s commitment to both Leeds and Bristol and to working with their mayoral authorities to deliver that at pace.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the First Secretary on her appointment. I am sure that the reforms planned to rewire the state are well-intentioned, but it seems that we are going from No. 10 plus the Cabinet Office to No. 10, No. 10 North, the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Cabinet Office and a new OneGov Delivery Agency. We are going from two to five. Does she understand our concerns that she is increasing the size of the state, increasing the cost and slowing down decision making?
Louise Haigh
We will reduce the size of the central civil service, shift power and resources out of Whitehall and speed up decision making.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
May I congratulate the First Secretary of State on her appointment and welcome the creation of No. 10 North as part of the Government’s commitment to drive good growth in every postcode? In that vein, is she aware of the series of funding decisions that have been taken by the Science and Technology Facilities Council that, taken together, will shift publicly funded research and development activity from north to south? The Prime Minister has already committed to intervening over Jodrell Bank, but will the First Secretary look at the broader issue and consider how the balance of R&D spend across the country can support economic growth in every region?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, which goes exactly to the issue that I raised about ensuring that non-elected bodies that are not accountable to politicians are not given free rein to make decisions. I will, of course, take away that issue.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
When the British public voted to take back control, they did not vote for Westminster to later duplicate the cost of politics and the civil service. Will the First Secretary of State confirm whether civil servants now working outside London will still receive the London-weighted salary, and will Ministers now working outside London still be able to claim for London-based housing?
Louise Haigh
The staffing of No. 10 North has been done on an interim basis to get it set up and running. We will recruit permanently and, of course, those roles will be based in Manchester.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Bearing in mind your family connection to the fire services in Harlow, Madam Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to fire officers across my constituency. I also welcome the First Secretary to her place; I know that she is a friend of Harlow. I thank the Government for their investment in our town, not just through the UK Health Security Agency, but through funding for rough sleeping and the 48 businesses that will benefit from the defence investment plan. On rewiring the state, I think previous Governments have seen working with the charity and voluntary sector as a cheaper option, yet volunteers and community services have expertise that we can utilise. We need to think about how they are funded properly and supported in the long term.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is right. Working with the charity and voluntary sector at local and regional level can be far better if we ensure they are properly funded and empowered to make decisions, procure and work in partnership. Through double devolution closest to the ground, we will ensure that the CVS is properly utilised and funded.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I welcome the First Secretary to her place. One area of the state that needs rewiring is support for neurodiverse people, because lots of decision makers do not get it. Will the First Secretary appoint a Minister for neurodiversity to the Cabinet Office to help ensure decision makers across the country get it and solve the challenges related to neurodivergence that they may face?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely interesting point, and I appreciate its importance. I will take away the wider point and establish what work needs to be done to ensure that properly dealing with neurodiversity is embedded across the whole of Government.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place and support her determination to rewire the state. In her statement, she spoke about an underpowered centre of Government and how Ministers often lack agency. In my view, Members of this House—MPs—also often lack agency and are underpowered. In the light of the welcome devolution of greater powers to unitary authorities and metro mayors, does she agree that it is important that we discuss and debate, in this place and elsewhere, the role of MPs? In fact, I have applied for debates on the subject. As we look to rewire the state, we need to enhance the status, powers and authority of Members of this place.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I encourage him to raise it with the Leader of the House so that we have proper time in the Chamber to debate the issue.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is great to see the powers being devolved to England to drive economic growth, yet the most minimal powers are not being considered for Wales. The promise made by the UK Government in February to jointly consult with the Welsh Government on the devolution of the vacant land tax has stalled. Will the First Secretary of State say what conversations she has had with the Treasury on that matter, and tell us when the consultation will be published?
Louise Haigh
As the hon. Lady knows, the Prime Minister said yesterday that we will be hosting a National Economic Council with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to discuss devolution at length, and the decisions around devolution that she has described will be made from there.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I align myself with the comments about firefighters and suggest that the right hon. Lady might need a bigger room for the summit, as there is so much interest in it.
I seek some clarity on business rates. She mentioned that devolution might lead to business rates retention, but it is the structure of business rates that is causing the decline of our high streets and the decimation of our hospitality sector. Giving local authorities such as Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and Dorset council the right to cut them will simply move the problem from the business to the statutory services of the councils. Could she clarify this and expand a little on her intentions?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to be clear about this issue. The Prime Minister made clear his intention around business rates very early in his premiership, including on cutting business rates for pubs and hospitality and businesses that really benefit our high streets. Where we are proposing devolution is for business rates retention, encouraging areas to grow their economy and then enjoy a share of that. They will not have any difference in altering the level of business rates, but they will be incentivised and be able to keep a share of them.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I congratulate the First Secretary on her post and appreciate the work the Government are doing on extreme weather. In my constituency last week, more than 60 families were left devastated by rainfall and flooding. I appreciate the £65 million that is being offered to farmers and the £100 million for emergency services, but will the First Secretary meet me and Birmingham city council to see what package could be offered to support those 60 families and to prevent a repeat of what took place last week?
Louise Haigh
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the impact on the 60 families in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and about their displacement. Off the back of the summer and the preparations we are making for wildfires, we are now preparing for flooding, and we are making extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios ahead of winter. I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him to consider what response we can make to his community.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
On the subject of wildfires, the Prime Minister has said that he does not believe our fire service have the right equipment, and I could not agree with him more. West Sussex fire and rescue service currently does not have access to wildfire personal protective equipment, and its newest off-road vehicle is 26 years old. Will the First Secretary of State or the relevant Minister please meet me and the chief fire officer of West Sussex fire and rescue to talk about how we can ensure that we keep the services on a sustainable financial footing so that they can keep us safe and we can also keep them safe?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right and raises incredibly important points. I can assure her that these issues will be considered by the wildfire summit, which I agree will need a bigger room at this rate.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
A 15-minute statement on rewiring the state, yet Scotland does not merit a single mention—not even the Cairngorm wildfire. It is becoming increasingly clear that this Prime Minister is almost exclusively focused on pursuing an English domestic agenda. Having lost five parliamentary elections in a row and slumped to 17% of the vote last May, I can understand why the Labour party has given up in Scotland, but does the Minister think it is wise to make it so obvious?
Louise Haigh
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I chose to address issues that I was directly responsible for. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that fire and rescue services are well and truly devolved in Scotland. As we have repeatedly said, we will be hosting a meeting of the National Economic Council with the First Minister. The Prime Minister has already met him and is committed to devolving power outside of Holyrood, which is as equally centralised a Government as the one that we are transferring power out of now.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the First Secretary of State to her place. Two weeks ago I held a hospitality business roundtable, and its participants will be pleased to hear her mention a pro-business culture and cutting the barriers that businesses face. At that event at North Bar, one thing that businesses such as the Fat Badger, Westmorland Coffee and other lovely hospitality businesses in Harrogate and Knaresborough brought up was the high VAT rates that our businesses face. They are some of the highest in Europe, so will she make it her mission and this Government’s mission to look at how we can cut VAT to support local businesses and get our high streets and local areas thriving?
Louise Haigh
We are incredibly conscious of the burdens that small businesses are facing, particularly ones like the Fat Badger in Harrogate. That is why the Prime Minister set as his priority reducing burdens and cutting taxes for businesses—hospitality businesses in particular—in the first days of his premiership. High street regeneration and breathing life into our villages, towns and cities is absolutely a priority of this regime.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The First Secretary of State talks about a broken political model that will cost jobs and opportunities, and I am afraid the decision that the predecessor Government made on local government reorganisation in Devon is exactly that: it will create a two-tier Devon, leaving one area behind. It has carved out three urban growth areas and dumped together all the bits that are left behind in a vast rural local authority of 100 miles from north to south with a road network equivalent to that of Luxembourg, leaving communities divided with little chance of ever being sustainable. This rural local authority has no chance of the same growth opportunities that the other ones have. This goes against everything the Prime Minister believes in about devolution being done from the ground up with the consent of communities, not from the top down from Whitehall. He told me that himself in July, so I urge the First Secretary and the Minister for Communities to listen to me, to other Devon MPs—perhaps not the Labour ones—and to the thousands of my constituents, and to review this decision.
Louise Haigh
I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are heard by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I can confirm that the Communities Secretary will determine next steps on local government reform by the end of October 2026.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre, with a proper political centre in No. 10 and a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My question to the Minister is: what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? Some 12,000 people are currently employed in the Cabinet Office and all its quangos. Some of them will be redistributed, but what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what is the point of the Cabinet Secretary’s post? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings, under the same incentives?
Louise Haigh
The Cabinet Office supports the wider civil service and still fulfils a number of incredibly important functions, including cross co-ordination of governmental priorities. The Cabinet Secretary’s role is to run the civil service as a whole, and that role will always be required.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the First Secretary to her post. I also welcome her good judgment in taking one of the esteemed former members of our Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), to be her Parliamentary Private Secretary. I know the First Secretary has probably already had some of this in her ear already, but I cannot lose this opportunity. This morning, the Health and Social Care Committee, with the Education Committee, heard moving evidence about why death by suicide has now overtaken almost everything else as the No. 1 reason that we lose children in this country. Often when we dive into issues like this, we find that education is not talking to health or to the local authorities. It cannot be beyond the wit of man, or indeed a shared governance structure with the right fiscal flows, to stop these stories happening. Will the First Secretary of State meet me to discuss what we are seeing in the Committee so that we can unlock the potential in all parts of society, because without doing that, I fear that the devolution agenda might fail?
Louise Haigh
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member, who I have worked with over many years on a number of campaigns. As ever, she raises an incredibly important point. I cannot imagine there are many people in this House who have not been touched by suicide in one way or another. I certainly have, in my close family. It is an incredibly important point that she raises and one that should and could be easily fixed in terms of the specific problems that can lead to state failings. Of course I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how we can address this.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The First Secretary has said that the purpose of rewiring the state is to get power and resource to communities and deliver for people in every postcode. In Blackburn, patients are being treated in corridors because our hospital simply does not have the capacity it needs. So I ask: how will these reforms ensure that communities like mine, where the need is greatest, actually receive the investment we need?
Louise Haigh
Health is absolutely part of the devolution agenda. We are already pursuing a number of reforms, including the abolition of NHS England, to ensure that decisions can be made democratically at the centre of Government and then pushed locally, and to ensure that they are resourced where possible. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific issue and raise it with the Health Secretary.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The First Secretary mentioned the heroics of firefighters during the summer. Gloucestershire fire and rescue service was involved in fighting the wildfires, even though we did not have any within our county boundaries, but the funding pressures on the fire service in Gloucestershire are now so acute that Cheltenham West fire station will be closed overnight if the consultation proposals are accepted. That cannot be right when we know we are going to be having more wildfires, perhaps even in Gloucestershire. Will the First Secretary have a chat with her colleagues in MHCLG to work out how we can get the support that the county fire service and the county council need to keep Cheltenham West fire station open overnight?
Louise Haigh
We are incredibly conscious of the historical underfunding of fire services across the country. That is why the previous Administration committed an additional £100 million to local fire and rescue services. Future funding decisions will be for the Budget.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
My summer tour took me to such wonderful villages as Forest Hill, Little Milton, Stanton St John and Warborough, and no one I met wants to be part of the new proposed Greater Oxford authority. These parishes have been pressganged into a new authority they do not want to be part of. Will the Government review the decision to split Oxfordshire into three—a messy solution—and support other solutions, such as the two-and-one local authority proposals?
Louise Haigh
The Prime Minister has been clear that we do not want to impose anything centrally on areas that do not want to combine areas. I am sure that we can facilitate a meeting or discussion in No. 10 North to ensure that we get the right authority, powers and resources for the hon. Gentleman’s area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the First Secretary to her new role and wish her well. The hon. Lady’s appointment comes at a critical time for the United Kingdom. She will know that the fundamental pillar of our Union is fairness, and right now the funding model for Northern Ireland is anything but fair. The current Barnett consequential framework is fundamentally broken. It fails to account for the unique, severe and acute objective needs of our public services, health sector and infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and co-ordinator of Government policy, agree that rewiring the funding formula must be treated as a priority cross-Cabinet issue, and will she commit to working across the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Office to replace the outdated mechanism with a needs-based funding floor?
Louise Haigh
As the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has opened a negotiation process with Stormont to look at funding and the funding pressures that have emerged. Fundamental to that negotiation will be reform of the decisions that Stormont makes and the way that the Executive have made decisions historically, which has repeatedly led to funding pressures. We need to ensure that these negotiations result in true reform, so we do not end up in this position again.
Bill Presented
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Representation of the People Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 346 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 410 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 427 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 411 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year””” “Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”
Government new clause 76—Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 77—Procedure for regulations under PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 78—Sharing of information between Electoral Commission and others.
Government new clause 113—Termination of entitlement to be registered as overseas elector.
Government new clause 114—Powers to prescribe form and contents of campaign expenditure returns etc.
Government new clause 115—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new clause 116—Cap on donations etc by overseas contributors.
Government new clause 117—Power to extend certain restrictions to other types of donation and loan etc.
New clause 2—Commencement of Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay an order under section 216 (commencement) of the Equality Act 2010 to commence section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of that Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 within three months, which would require political parties to publish information on the protected characteristics of candidates in parliamentary elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and to the Senedd.
New clause 3—Electoral Commission: Publication of information about diversity in range of candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 13A (reimbursement of costs by Scottish Ministers etc.) insert—
‘13ZAA Collection and publication of information about diversity in range of candidates
(1) The Commission shall collect information published under section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of the Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Commission shall publish the information collected under subsection (1) in an accessible form at such intervals as the Commissioners consider appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to collect and publish in an accessible form diversity information required to be provided by political parties under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
New clause 4—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
New clause 5—Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In Schedule 19B, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (5), at end insert ‘or;
(b) relevant to determining whether to start an investigation.’”
This new clause would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation.
New clause 6—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.—
“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—
‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates
(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—
(a) a relative; or
(b) a member of staff;
of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”
This new clause would, with Amendment 1, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.
New clause 7—Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘election periods’ means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of ‘election expense’ of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
New clause 9—Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 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 is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
New clause 10—Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3ZB) insert—
‘(3ZC) A person is not to be treated as a permissible donor in relation to a donation if the person has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence.
(3ZD) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the offences which fall within subsection (3ZC).’”
New clause 11—Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of any foreign nation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to a foreign administration.’
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
‘(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities in order to be validly nominated. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure their candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on behalf of the party.
New clause 12—Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Annual statement on mitigation of foreign donation risks
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, prepare a statement setting out the steps taken by the party to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation.
(2) The statement must be delivered to the Commission alongside the party's statement of accounts for that year.
66B Annual independent investigation of donations by foreign-owned UK entities
(1) A registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, arrange for an independent investigation to be conducted into any donations received by the party from a foreign-owned UK entity.
(2) A report of the independent investigation must be submitted to the Commission by the treasurer of the party within six months of the end of the calendar year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the appointment and qualifications of an independent investigator for the purposes of this section;
(b) the definition of a “foreign-owned UK entity”; and
(c) the required contents of the investigation report.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’”
This new clause requires registered political parties to produce an annual statement detailing how they have mitigated risks relating to donations from foreign nations. It also requires parties to commission an annual independent investigation into donations they receive from foreign-owned UK entities, with the findings submitted to the Electoral Commission.
New clause 13—Information to be included with electronic material: generative artificial intelligence—
“(1) Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert—
“(c) where the electronic material consists of or includes image, audio or video content that has been generated or materially altered by means of generative artificial intelligence, a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.”
(2A) In this section, ‘generative artificial intelligence’ means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined prompts or objectives, generate new image, audio or video content.”
This new clause amends the digital imprint rules in the Elections Act 2022 to require that any political campaigning material which contains images, audio, or video generated or materially altered by AI must include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.
New clause 14—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 2.
New clause 15—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
New clause 16—Impact of the Act on trust in elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act's provisions on trust in elections.
(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "trust in elections" includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) Scottish Ministers;
(c) Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
New clause 18—Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from a prescribed foreign state broadcaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a foreign state broadcaster for the purposes of this paragraph where the Secretary of State considers the broadcaster is acting on behalf of, or producing propaganda for, a foreign power.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for appearing on, hosting, or contributing to broadcasts or programmes.’
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of past earnings from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received any past or current earnings, payments or benefits from a foreign state broadcaster prescribed under paragraph 6A of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.’”
This new clause prohibits politicians (regulated donors) from receiving any payment from prescribed foreign state broadcasters. It also amends the parliamentary election rules to require candidates (including incumbent MPs) to formally declare any past earnings from these entities in order to be validly nominated to stand for election.
New clause 19—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
New clause 20—Extension of right to vote etc. to certain foreign nationals—
“(1) The RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c), after ‘Ireland,’ insert ‘a qualifying EU citizen, or a qualifying foreign national’.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”
(b) in subsection (1)(c)(i), after ‘rights’ insert ‘or a qualifying foreign citizen;’.”
This new clause would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to include qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and to extend the local government franchise in England to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 21—Cap on political donations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert—
‘54C Power to set cap on political donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3).
(2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations.
(6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of—
(a) the prevailing economic conditions;
(b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and
(c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review.
(8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must—
(a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and
(b) prepare and publish a report of its findings.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (8)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.
(10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (9) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conducted every three years.
New clause 22—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.
New clause 23—Prohibition on remuneration for social media activity—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6C (1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’
(3) Schedule 2A to RPA 1983 (control of donations to candidates) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6A (1) A candidate or their election agent must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’”
This new clause prohibits members of registered parties, members associations, holders of relevant elective offices and electoral candidates from receiving any payment, remuneration, or financial benefit in exchange for posting, promoting, or interacting with content on social media.
New clause 24—Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of the Russian Federation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to the government of the Russian Federation.”
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration.
New clause 25—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 26—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.’”
This amendment would prevent individuals and companies connected to public contracts within the previous ten years from being treated as permissible donors under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
New clause 27—Report on interference in UK elections originating from the United States of America—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the extent of electoral interference originating from the United States of America and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must review the extent of the following activities and their impact on voters—
(a) United States-based social media companies amplifying electoral campaign material via algorithms; and
(b) donations made to registered political parties, think-tanks, lobbying firms and other regulated donees in the United Kingdom originating from—
(i) the United States Government,
(ii) United States-based companies, and
(iii) business leaders with United States citizenship.
(3) The report must also set out information about the nature of any campaigns receiving donations from those set out in subsection (2), including—
(a) the stated aims attached to any donations made; and
(b) any agreements between donees and organisations in receipt of such donations.
(4) The report published under subsection (1) must include any recommendations considered necessary to protect the integrity of United Kingdom elections.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘the integrity of United Kingdom elections’ means the extent to which elections are considered to be free and fair, and have public confidence in their outcomes.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish a report on electoral interference originating from the USA and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom, focusing on the extent of algorithmic amplification of campaign material by US-based social media companies and of donations from US-based companies and business leaders.
New clause 28—Prohibition of controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In Section 89A (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure) leave out subsection (2).
(3) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Senedd Cymru elections) leave out subsection (2).
(4) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Scottish Parliament elections) leave out subsection (2).
(5) In Section 75 of RPA 1983 (prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent) leave out—
(a) subsection 1ZZB(a);
(b) subsection 1ZA.
(6) In Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) after subsection (3)(b) insert—
‘(c) a statement declaring the original source of the funding used to pay for the promotion or publication of the material.’”
This new clause prevents controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors, including foreign-funded advertising, by reducing the existing £700 spending limit for such donors to nil. It also requires that campaign material includes a statement declaring the origin of its funding.
New clause 29—Prohibition of political advertising by non-permissible donors—
“(1) A person or organisation that is not a permissible donor must not incur any expenditure on political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘political advertising’ means any materials or activities with a view to promoting a political party, candidate or campaign;
‘relevant election’ has the same meaning as in Part II of PPERA.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment, including this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would prevent non-permissible donors from funding political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election, and provide the Secretary of State with regulation making powers to enable this prohibition to be enforced.
New clause 30—Review of how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on annual basis—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties.
(2) The review must consider how annual campaign expenditure limits could—
(a) promote transparency and fairness in elections;
(b) limit the risk of foreign interference in elections; and
(c) be implemented in a proportionate manner without undue impact on political parties, candidates and third parties.
(3) In conducting the review, the Electoral Commission must consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
(4) The Electoral Commission must publish a report of its findings no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report, lay before both Houses of Parliament, a response to the report.
(6) The response to the report must contain proposals informed by the Electoral Commission’s report.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties, and for the Government to respond to the report and bring forward proposals based on the Electoral Commission’s findings.
New clause 32—Parliamentary elections: Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 6 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(6AA)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of one or more organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a parliamentary election to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 33—Local government elections (England and Wales): Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 are amended as follows.
(2) After rule 4 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(4A)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a local government election in England and Wales to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 34—Prohibition on accepting donations in cryptoassets to political parties and candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), at end insert—
‘(7) Any donation received by a registered party or regulated donee which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins; or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(8) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Electoral Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (7).
(9) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
(3) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) In Schedule 2A, Section 6 (prohibition on accepting donations from impermissible donors), after subparagraph (3), insert—
‘(3A) Any relevant donation received by a candidate or their election agent which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets,
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins, or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider,
shall be regarded as a donation received by a candidate or their election agent who is not a permissible donor.
(3B) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (3A).
(3C) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
The purpose of this new clause is to prevent parties, regulated donees (including third party campaigners) and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets or from the proceeds of cryptoassets, to reduce the risks of anonymous and impermissible donations.
New clause 35—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—
“(1) Section 1 (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “Ireland” insert “or a foreign national who for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971 has—
(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;
(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;
(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or
(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.””
This new clause expands the right to vote in General Elections to residents of the UK who have the right to abode in the UK or leave to enter or remain for an indefinite period.
New clause 36—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at local government elections in England—
“(1) Section 2 (entitlement to vote in local elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”.
(3) In subsection (1)(c)(i), after “rights” insert “or a qualifying foreign citizen;”.”
This new clause expands the right to vote in local government elections in England to extend to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 37—Access to Elected Office Fund (England)—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 90D insert—
“90E Access to Elected Office Fund (England)
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, require the Electoral Commission to establish and maintain a fund to be known as the Access to Elected Office Fund (England) (“the Fund”).
(2) The purpose of the Fund is to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England, including providing assistance to meet any additional campaign costs incurred by the candidate as a result of their disability, and the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must administer the Fund consistently with that purpose.
(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Fund of such amounts as they may determine.
(4) Regulations under this section may—
(a) designate a different person, other than the Electoral Commission, to establish and maintain the Fund;
(b) specify criteria for eligibility for financial assistance;
(c) set out the types of expenditure for which financial assistance may be provided;
(d) specify the value of financial assistance available to an individual candidate; and
(e) establish rules and procedures that the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must comply with when administering the Fund.
(5) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) disabled people;
(b) political parties;
(c) relevant charities and civil society organisations; and
(d) the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “disability” has the meaning given under section (6) (disability) of the Equality Act 2010.
(7) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.””
New clause 38—Enfranchisement of foreign nationals at local elections in Northern Ireland—
“(1) Section 2 (local elections electors) of the RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), at end insert—
“(iii) in relation to a local government election in Northern Ireland, a relevant citizen of the Union or a qualifying foreign citizen;””
This new clause would give all residents in Northern Ireland with leave to enter or stay in the UK the right to vote in local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
New clause 39—Prohibition on campaigning or obstructing electors outside polling places—
“(1) A person who interferes or obstructs or impedes a person going to or coming from a polling station commits an offence.
(2) During the period commencing 30 minutes before the time appointed for the taking of a poll at an election, and ending 30 minutes after the close of the said poll, a person shall not, in or in the curtilage of a polling station or in any place within 50 metres of such station, for the purpose of promoting the interest of a political party or furthering the candidature of a candidate or candidates or soliciting votes for a candidate or candidates or for any contrary purpose, do any or all of the following—
(a) loiter or congregate with other persons;
(b) attempt to induce, by any means whatsoever, an elector to vote for a candidate or candidates or vote in a particular way or refrain from voting;
(c) display or distribute any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election; or
(d) use or cause to be used any loud-speaker or other public address mechanism to broadcast matter relating to the election.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a polling station shall be deemed to include all parts of the building and any land within the curtilage of the building in which the polling station is situated and the distance referred to in subsection (2) shall be measured from any entrance to the polling station or to the curtilage thereof.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence.
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.”
This new clause would prevent people from campaigning, interfering, obstructing or impeding electors going to or coming from a polling station.
New clause 40—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“In section 3 of RPA 1983, (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.)—
(a) for subsection (1), substitute—
“(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.”;
(b) omit subsection (1A); and
(c) in subsection 1B, for “1A” substitute “1”.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
New clause 41—Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament guidance on certain digital communication offences, including offences involving digital manipulation and artificially generated content in relation to candidates and elected officials.
(2) Any guidance issued under subsection (1) must include guidance on the following—
(a) the operation of section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(b) the operation of section 114A (undue influence) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(c) the interaction between the operations of sections 106 and 114A of the RPA 1983 and the duty of providers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including in relation to priority offences during election periods.
(3) Within 12 months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament either—
(a) a statement that no updates to the guidance are required, or
(b) an updated version of the guidance.
(4) Before issuing—
(a) any guidance under subsection (1) or subsection (3)(b), or
(b) a statement under subsection (3)(a),
the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM and such other persons as they think necessary.
(5) For the purposes of this section “priority offences” means an offence listed in Schedule 7 (Priority offences) of the Online Safety Act 2023.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications as they relate to candidates and elected officials.
New clause 42—Report on electoral online harms—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must publish a report on the prevention of electoral online harms.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “electoral online harms” includes—
(a) abuse and harassment of or threats directed towards elected representatives, candidates, party campaigners and election officials, or
(b) incitement or violence against any such individuals, but does not include mockery or insult, save where it forms part of a campaign of harassment.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) must contain—
(a) an assessment of the risks of electoral online harms, and
(b) proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks including through amendment of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(4) Before publishing its report under subsection (1) the Electoral Commission must consult—
(a) OFCOM, and
(b) the National Police Chiefs Council.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to publish a report containing an assessment of the risks of online electoral harms, and proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks.
New clause 43—Repository of digital political advertising—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 61 insert—
“Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising
61A Establishing a repository of digital political advertising
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;
(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;
(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and
(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.
(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
(c) OFCOM.
(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.
New clause 44—Electoral Commission: powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) After Schedule 12, insert—
“SCHEDULE 13: Electoral Commission powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to allow the Electoral Commission to issue a notice requiring certain information from a regulated user-to-user service or search service, at any time during any regulated election period.
(2) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify that a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph must comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify the information which may be requested by the Electoral Commission, and include the following where they relate to elections—
(a) information relating to paid-for political advertising;
(b) algorithmic systems;
(c) coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and
(d) automated or bot accounts (whether domestic or foreign).
(4) Any regulations made under paragraph (2) must also provide for any safeguards considered necessary by the Secretary of State as regards data protection or commercial confidentiality.
(5) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this Schedule, “user-to-user service” has the meaning given by section 3 (“user-to-user service” and “search service”) of the Online Safety Act 2023.””
New clause 45—Critical election incident protocol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a Critical Election Incident Protocol (“the Protocol”) for the purpose of responding to incidents that present a significant risk to the integrity, security or public confidence of elections.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Critical Election Incident” means any event, threat or activity that poses a substantial risk to—
(a) the integrity, security or administration of an election;
(b) the ability of the public to freely participate in the electoral process;
(c) or public confidence in the fairness or legitimacy of an election.
(3) Before publishing the Protocol, the Secretary of State must consult the following on its contents—
(a) relevant civil society organisations,
(b) relevant experts, and
(c) relevant regulators.
(4) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the establishment of an oversight body comprised of such senior ministers and officials as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the establishment of an advisory body of civil society and experts with relevant expertise as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(c) criteria by which Critical Election Incidents are identified and the Protocol is triggered;
(d) categories of severity of Critical Election Incidents based on their severity; and
(e) details of differentiated responses to Critical Election Incidents for each of the categories identified under subsection (d) which would be necessary and proportionate.
(5) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must be compatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations including but not limited to the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Protocol—
(a) one year after the publication of the Protocol under subsection (1) and annually thereafter; and
(b) within three months of any occasion on which the Protocol has been used.
(7) Any report published under subsection (6) must include—
(a) a description of activities undertaken under the Protocol, subject to any necessary limitations relating to national security or ongoing investigations;
(b) information about consultation with the established oversight and advisory bodies;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the Protocol on human rights and democratic participation.
(8) Any report produced under subsection (6) must be sent to the Housing and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons.
(9) In this section, references to Housing and Local Government Committee shall—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (b)) to be references to the Committee by its new name;
(b) if the functions of that Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to matters relating to Protocol become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, be taken to be references to the committee by whom the functions for the time being exercisable.”
New clause 46—Government review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the adequacy of the current regulated periods for elections and referendums.
(2) The review must consider the following—
(a) the impact of campaign activity outside the relevant regulated period on elections;
(b) whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient to tackle the prevalence of—
(i) manipulated content,
(ii) misinformation,
(iii) disinformation,
and their potential influence on elections.
(3) The review may make any recommendations it feels necessary for legislative or regulatory reform as a result of its findings.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “campaign activity” includes—
(a) digital campaigning;
(b) targeted advertising; and
(c) automated content distribution.
(5) For the purposes of this section “regulated period” means any period regulated under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament, together with their response to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reform.”
This new clause requires the government to establish a review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections which would consider whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient in relation to the prevalence of manipulated content, misinformation and disinformation.
New clause 47—Information to be included with electronic material: data provenance—
“After Section 41 (requirement to include information with electronic material) of the Elections Act 2022 insert—
“Requirement to include information with electronic material created through generative artificial intelligence
(1) This section applies to electronic material which—
(a) meets the conditions in section 42 (paid for electronic material), or
(b) meets the conditions in section 44 (other electronic material), and has been generated wholly through generative artificial intelligence.
(2) Electronic material to which this section applies must not be published unless it includes the following information—
(a) a statement that content was wholly generated by a generative artificial intelligence system;
(b) the name of the system used to generate the content.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) additional requirements for information to be required under subsection (2);
(b) the form in which the information required under subsection (2) is to be provided.
(4) The form prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) must be a form which can be detected and processed by regulated user-to-user services for the purpose of providing the required information to users of such services.
(5) Any regulations made under subsection (3) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “generative artificial intelligence” means a computer system or software that—
(a) is capable of producing text, images, audio, video, or other content autonomously, wholly or substantially, based on prompts or instructions provided by a user;
(b) uses machine learning or other algorithmic techniques to generate content that mimics human-created material; and
(c) may produce content that is not pre-existing but is synthesized based on patterns learned from existing data.””
This new clause requires campaign material which has been generated by generative artificial intelligence to include a statement to that effect along with the name of the system used. It creates a power for the Government to make regulations about the information to be included.
New clause 48—Blind and partially sighted voters: equipment and secret voting—
“(1) Rule 29 (equipment of polling stations) of Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3)(a), at end insert—
“independently and in secret”.
(3) For paragraph (3A) substitute—
“(3A) The returning officer shall also provide each polling station with such equipment as is necessary to ensure that relevant persons are able to vote independently and in secret, including—
(a) tactile equipment that enables the voter to navigate the ballot paper and accurately mark their chosen candidate without assistance; and
(b) audio equipment that enables the voter to access and review the content of the ballot paper in the language in which it is printed without assistance.”
(4) After paragraph (3A) insert—
“(3AA) For the purposes of paragraph (3A)(b), a person is able to vote independently and in secret only if they are not required to rely on the assistance of the presiding officer, companion, or any other person to navigate, review and mark the ballot paper.””
This new clause would require certain equipment to be provided to people who find it difficult or impossible to vote because they are blind, partially sighted, or because of another disability in order for them to be able to vote independently and in secret.
New clause 49—Electoral Advertising Code of Practice—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice (“the Advertising Code”).
(2) The Advertising Code must include principles and guidance relating to electoral advertising and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) ensuring the accuracy of factual claims,
(b) the need for relevant and reliable evidence to substantiate factual claims,
(c) the need to clearly identify the political party affiliated with an advert,
(d) transparency in the use of artificial intelligence, and
(e) issuing prompt public corrections to address mistakes.
(3) In this section “electoral advertising” means any factual claims in marketing communications, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election or referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Advertising Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) the Electoral Advertising Code Committee,
(b) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(c) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice. It is connected to NC50, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 50—Electoral Advertising Code Committee—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee (“the Committee”).
(2) The functions of the Committee are—
(a) to advise the Electoral Commission on the preparation and revision of the Advertising Code,
(b) to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the Advertising Code, and
(c) to oversee the operation of and monitor the effectiveness of the Advertising Code.
(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Committee must have regard to the importance of freedom of political expression and open democratic debate, and will not determine matters of political opinion unless they fall within the scope of factual claims in electoral advertising.
(4) The Committee is to consist of—
(a) a Chair,
(b) a member nominated by the Electoral Commission,
(c) a member nominated by the Advertising Standards Authority or its successor body,
(d) a member nominated by the Office of Communications, and
(e) a member nominated by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
(5) Nothing in this Part limits the powers of the bodies identified in subsection (4) under any other enactment.
(6) The Chair is to be appointed by the Electoral Commission following a fair and open competition conducted in accordance with the Public Appointments Code, with a majority of independent members on the assessment panel and a senior independent panel member.
(7) The appointment of the Chair requires the consent of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(8) In making the appointment, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the need to secure the independence of the Committee.
(9) A person appointed as Chair holds office—
(a) for a single non-renewable term of five years from the date of appointment, and
(b) in accordance with terms and conditions (including as to remuneration and pension) specified by the Electoral Commission.
(10) The Chair may resign from office by giving written notice to the Electoral Commission.
(11) The Electoral Commission must pay to the Committee the sums determined by the Chair as appropriate for, or in connection with, the carrying out of the Committee’s functions.
(12) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, carry out a consultation on a levy on registered political parties’ election advertising spend for the purpose of funding the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(13) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) representatives of registered political parties, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee. It is connected to NC49, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 51—Status of the Campaign Code and enforcement of the Advertising Code—
“(1) Persons engaged in political campaigning must have regard to the Campaign Code.
(2) A registered political party must prepare, publish and keep under review a code of conduct relating to its political campaigning.
(3) A code under subsection (2) must be consistent with the Campaign Code and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(4) The following persons, when engaged in electoral advertising, must comply with the Advertising Code—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) members of the House of Commons,
(c) members of any local authority in any part of the United Kingdom,
(d) members of the Greater London Assembly,
(e) candidates or prospective candidates at a United Kingdom general election, by-election, local authority election, Greater London Authority election or mayoral election,
(f) recognised third parties within the meaning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(g) election agents within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) The Committee may, by written notice, require a person to provide information or documents reasonably required for the purposes of investigating a suspected breach of the Advertising Code.
(6) A person must comply with a requirement under subsection (5) unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(7) If, on an application by the Committee, a court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (5), the court may make an order requiring the person to provide the Committee with—
(a) information referred to in the notice, and
(b) other information which the court is satisfied the Committee requires.
(8) Where the Committee considers that electoral advertising is inconsistent with the Advertising Code, it may take the following steps which it considers reasonable to secure compliance—
(a) issuing a notice requiring the person responsible to amend, withdraw or substantiate the advertising within a specified period,
(b) publishing a formal finding of non-compliance on its website [and in the repository of political adverts],
(c) requiring the publication of a correction, clarification or updated version of the advertising with similar prominence where practicable,
(d) notifying relevant online services or publishers and requesting prompt suspension or removal of advertising during the regulated period, and
(e) referring repeated or serious breaches to the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions in accordance with its powers under Schedule 19C to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(9) In deciding whether to impose a civil sanction under subsection (8)(e), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the findings and recommendations of the Committee, and
(b) any enforcement action taken in relation to the same conduct under any other enactment.
(10) Where the Electoral Commission imposes a civil sanction following a referral from the Committee, it must publish a notice setting out—
(a) the nature of the breach,
(b) the sanction imposed, and
(c) the reasons for the sanction.
(11) A person on whom a civil sanction is imposed under subsection (8)(e) may appeal in accordance with the appeal provisions under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(12) Failure to comply with the Campaign Code or the Advertising Code does not of itself give rise to criminal liability.”
This new clause is connected to NC49, NC50 and NC52.
New clause 52—Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning (“the Campaign Code”).
(2) The Campaign Code must set out principles and guidance relating to political campaigning and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(3) In this section “political campaigning” means any conduct, communications or other activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended, directly or indirectly, to influence public support for, or opposition to—
(a) a registered political party,
(b) a candidate or prospective candidate at a general election, by-election, local election or mayoral election, or
(c) an outcome in a referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Campaign Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.
(5) The Electoral Commission may revise the Campaign Code from time to time, and subsections (1) to (4) apply to a revised Campaign Code as they apply to the original.
(6) Electoral advertising as defined in this Part is regulated under the Electoral Advertising Code of Practice and subject to enforcement by the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(7) This Part applies in relation to elections and referendums for which provision may be made by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning. It is connected to NC49 to NC51. The reference in this new clause to “this Part” is a reference to a new Part which would be formed of NC49 to NC51.
New clause 53—Third party campaigning: meaning of “controlled expenditure”—
“(1) Section 85 of PPERA 2000 (controlled expenditure by third parties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) substitute “can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure” with “is incurred with a view to promoting or procuring”.
(3) Omit subsection (4A).”
This new clause would amend the definition of “controlled expenditure” so that expenditure will only be “controlled expenditure” if the intention of a relevant third party is to promote or procure electoral success for registered parties or candidates.
New clause 54—Declaration of gifts and benefits—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of certain gifts and benefits prior to nomination
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating—
(a) whether they have received in the 12 months preceding the declaration, or are currently in receipt of, gifts or benefits from a single source which are individually or cumulatively of a value exceeding £5000 (“a qualifying gift or benefit”);
(b) the value of any qualifying gift or benefit; and
(c) the source of any qualifying gift or benefit.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a gift or benefit means—
(a) any gift to the person of money or other property;
(b) any sponsorship provided in relation to the person;
(c) any money lent to the person otherwise than on commercial terms;
(d) any money spent in paying any expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the person; or
(e) the provision otherwise than on commercial terms of any property, services or facilities for the use or benefit of the person;
whether or not made in connection with the person’s nomination.
(4) A gift or benefit is not required to be declared under sub-paragraph (1) if it is provided by an immediate family member of the person and the conditions in sub-paragraph (5) are met.
(5) The conditions are that—
(a) the gift or benefit is not being transferred, either directly or indirectly, from any third person; and
(b) the gift or benefit is not made or used in connection with the person’s nomination or any other political activity.
(6) For the purposes of this rule “immediate family member” means a spouse, civil partner, partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild.
(7) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.”’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare gifts or benefits worth over £5000, except from immediate family, during the 12 months before nomination to be validly nominated, It also places a duty on parties to ensure candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on their behalf.
New clause 56—Plan for implementation of registration without an application—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a plan for the implementation of Part 2.
(2) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within the period of two months beginning with the day on which this section of this Act comes into force.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan before Parliament.
(4) The plan must set out—
(a) the steps that the Secretary of State plans to take to facilitate the registration of persons registered under section 12A of RPA 1983, including the dates by which each step will be completed;
(b) when the Secretary of State expects any pilot regulations made under section 20 to be laid before each House of Parliament;
(c) a projection of the number of additional persons registered by 15 August 2029 as a consequence of the implementation (in part or in full) of Part 2.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for implementation of registration without an application.
New clause 57—Compulsory voting and civic education—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing—
(a) a compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, and
(b) a programme of civic education in connection with that duty.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine, at a rate to be set by the Secretary of State;
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are unable to participate in an election, including—
(i) those with a physical or mental illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are unavoidably absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from participating in the election.
(3) Proposals published under this section relating to a programme of civic education must include civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including—
(a) the different electoral systems operation in the UK, and
(b) the roles and responsibilities of elected office holders in the UK.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general elections and local elections in England and proposals for a programme of civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including electoral systems and the roles of elected office holders.
New clause 58—Offences for purposes of Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022: domestic abuse—
“(1) Schedule 9 (offences for the purpose of part 5) of the Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 52A (Online Safety Act 2023) insert—
“Behaviour amounting to domestic abuse
52B Any offence where the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act).””
This new clause would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to the list of Schedule 9 offences for which provisions relating to hostility would apply.
New clause 59—Disqualification orders for court orders relating to abuse or harassment—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out below.
(2) After Section 30 (disqualification orders) insert—
“30A Disqualification orders in connection with court orders relating to abuse or harassment
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“the perpetrator”) has a qualifying order made against them,
(b) the perpetrator was aged 18 or over when the order was made, and
(c) the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that behaviour done to a person for whose protection the qualifying order is made is aggravated by hostility to a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a qualifying order is—
(a) a domestic violence protection order;
(b) a non-molestation order; or
(c) a restraining order.
(3) The court must, when making a qualifying order, also make an order (a “disqualification order”) that the offender is disqualified, for the period in which the qualifying order is in force—
(a) for being nominated for election to a relevant elective office, and
(b) for being elected to or holding a relevant elective office.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply where the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the qualifying order or to the perpetrator which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make the order; and in such a case the court must state the reasons for not making the order.
(5) For the purposes of this section an offence is aggravated by hostility related to persons falling within any of sections 32 to 34 if—
(a) at the time the order was made, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the person for whose protection the order was made, hostility based on the person being (or being presumed to be) a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34, or
(b) the abusive behaviour was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons falling within any of those sections in their capacity as such.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) it is immaterial whether or not the perpetrator’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.
(7) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a disqualification order the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.
(8) It is immaterial whether evidence led in pursuance of subsection (6) would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the protection order was made.
(9) In this section—
“domestic violence protection order” has the meaning set out in section 27 (meaning of “domestic abuse protection order”) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
“non-molestation order” has the meaning set out in section 42 (non-molestation orders) of the Family Law Act 1996;
“restraining order” has the meaning set out in chapter 3 (protection from harassment) of the Sentencing Act 2020;
“presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(10) In section 37 (interpretation of part), in subsection (1) after “section 30” insert “or 30A”.”
This new clause would require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders imposed to prevent abuse or harassment in cases where the hostility relates to a person protected under the Elections Act 2022.
New clause 61—Restriction on registration of parties with assets greater than £250,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 28 (registration of parties) after subsection (3D) insert—
“(3DA) A party may not make an application under this section at any time when the total value of the party’s assets is greater than £250,000”
(3) In Schedule 4 (applications under part II) after paragraph 5 insert—
“5A An application must be accompanied by a declaration containing the details of all bank accounts used by the central party and, where relevant, its accounting units for managing all income and expenditure of the party.
5B The Secretary of State may by regulations set out the information required in a declaration under paragraph 5A following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission.
5C Regulations under paragraph 5B are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause prevents a new political party from applying to be registered with the Electoral Commission if it has assets of more than £250,000 at the time of registration, and to provide the Commission with details of the bank accounts used.
New clause 62—Statutory guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must prepare draft guidance for Returning Officers on enforcing the provisions of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
(2) Once the Commission has prepared draft guidance under this section, it must submit it to the Secretary of State.
(3) Within 28 days of receipt the draft ballot secrecy guidance, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the draft guidance, either—
(a) in its original form, or
(b) in a form which incorporates any modifications that the Secretary of State considers necessary.
(4) If the draft guidance incorporates any such modifications, the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before each House a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for making them.
(5) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft guidance, the Secretary of State must take no further steps in relation to the draft guidance.
(6) Subsection (5) does not prevent new draft guidance from being laid before Parliament.
(7) If no resolution of the kind mentioned in subsection (5) is made within the 40-day period—
(a) the Secretary of State must issue the guidance in the form of the draft laid before Parliament,
(b) the Commission must arrange for the guidance to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate, and
(c) the guidance comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
(8) The Commission—
(a) may from time to time prepare draft revised guidance under this section, and
(b) must prepare draft revised guidance under this section if directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
(9) References in this section (other than in subsection (1)) to guidance or draft guidance include revised guidance or draft revised guidance.
(10) In this section “the 40-day period”, in relation to draft guidance, means—
(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and
(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House, no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(11) Returning Officers must have regard to guidance issued under this section in exercising their functions.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to prepare, and Parliament to approve, statutory guidance to Returning Officers on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
New clause 63—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
(2) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
New clause 64—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.
New clause 65—Independent review of registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review into how to increase the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections.
(2) The matters which the review must consider shall include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) the experience of overseas voters at 2024 general election;
(b) the impact of the Elections Act 2022 on overseas voters;
(c) the number of voters participating from overseas in recent elections in the United Kingdom.
(3) The independent review must report within six months of the passing of this Act and be laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into increasing the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 66—Sponsorship—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 51 (sponsorship) after subsection 3 (b) insert—
“(c) the making of any payment in respect of advertisements or marketing at a conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for such advertisements or marketing;”
(3) In section 52 (payments, services etc. not to be regarded as donations), for subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) Nothing in section 50 or 51 shall have the result that a payment made in respect of the—
(a) hire of a stand,
(b) hire or sponsorship of a lounge, dedicated space, room, marquee, roundtable event, meal or reception,
at or associated with a party conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party is to constitute a donation to the party for the purposes of this Part if or to the extent that the payment does not exceed such of the maximum commercial rates which the Commission determine to be reasonable for such types of activity at a conference.””
This new clause amends the definition of sponsorship for the purposes of PPERA 2000 so that it does not include advertising, marketing, hire of a stand or a space associated with a party conference, where payment is made at commercial rates.
New clause 67—Language of campaign materials—
“(1) During the relevant period campaign material must not be promoted or published in a foreign language.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person causes campaign material to be promoted or published that falls within subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“campaign material” means imprinted election campaign material published by political parties and candidates, whether in hard copy or digital format;
“foreign language” means a native language of any foreign country outside the British Islands, other than English;
“relevant period” the period after the date on which the candidate becomes a candidate at an election.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove—
(a) that the person took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that the campaign material was not promoted or published contrary to subsection (1), and
(b) that the contravention arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.”
This new clause would ban election materials published in a foreign language by political parties and candidates during the short campaign. It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.
New clause 68—Deadlines for proxy vote applications sent by post—
‘(1) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means.”
(2) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”
(3) In regulation 57 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”.’
This new clause would require registration officers to accept postal applications for proxy votes in local and general elections in England and Wales, and in general elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland received after the deadline, where there is proof that the application was sent on time for the deadline.
New clause 69—Cap on donations—
‘(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £1,000,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms:
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;" insert—
“political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after “registered party” means a party registered under Part II of this Act;” insert—
“relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.
() In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after “section 54(1)(a)” insert—
“or section 55B.”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
Insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 70—Limits on campaign expenditure—
“In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits on campaign expenditure)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for "£54,010" substitute "£37,600";
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for "£1,458,440" substitute "£1,015,100";
(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), for "£216,060" substitute "£150,390";
(d) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for "£108,030" substitute “£75,000";
(e) in sub-paragraph (4), for "£54,010" substitute “£37,600”.”
This new clause lowers the national campaign spending limits for political parties, in line with recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL).
New clause 71—Cap on donations exceeding £100,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations exceeding £100,000
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds £100,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund for the purpose of paying that union’s affiliation fee to a registered party is no less than the total affiliation fee paid by that union to the registered party; and
(b) that the trade union has within the previous twelve months provided those members who contribute to the political fund of that union with details of—
(i) the purpose of the political fund;
(ii) any relationship between the union and any political party in receipt of contributions paid from the political fund; and
(iii) the manner in which a member who contributes to the political fund may exercise a right to stop any contribution to the political fund.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the administration of the conditions in subsection (4).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on donations for registered parties, recognised third parties, regulated donees, permitted participants or candidates and their agents, with exemptions for certain organisational donations and bequests.
New clause 80—Cap on donations—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £250,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms—
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that the accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
(2) The relevant date for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) where the donation is accepted, the date of acceptance; or
(b) where the donation is returned, the date of return.
(3) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), a donor must provide copies of all receipts received by them within that calendar year.
(4) Donors and relevant regulated entities must retain copies of receipts issued or received under this section for a period of 5 years.
(5) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), the Electoral Commission must provide a unique identifier to the relevant regulated entity.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of signification control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.”
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;” insert—
““political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after "registered party" means a party registered under Part II of this Act;" insert—
““relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.”
(7) In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after "section 54(1)(a)" insert—
“" or section 55B".”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 81—Removal of requirement to publish candidates’ addresses
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates) omit paragraphs (5) and (6).
(3) In rule 14 (publication of statement of persons nominated)—
“(a) In paragraph (2) for “addresses” substitute “a statement of—
“(a) where the candidate’s home address is in the United Kingdom, the constituency or the relevant area within which that address is situated;
(b) where the candidate’s home address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which that address is situated;”
(b) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(2ZA) In paragraph (2)(a), “relevant area” means—
“(a) in relation to a home address in England—
(i) if the address is within a district for which there is a district council, that district;
(ii) if the address is within a county in which there are no districts with councils, that county;
(iii) if the address is within a London borough, that London borough;
(iv) if the address is within the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the City of London;
(v) if the address is within the Isles of Scilly, the Isles of Scilly;
(b) in relation to a home address in Wales—
(i) if the address is within a county, that county;
(ii) if the address is within a county borough, that county borough;
(c) in relation to a home address in Scotland, the local government area in which the address is situated;
(d) in relation to a home address in Northern Ireland, the local government district in which the address is situated.””
(c) Omit paragraph (3A)”
(4) In rule 14A (correction of minor errors) omit subparagraph (2)(c).”
This new clause would remove the requirement for candidates’ addresses to be published, replacing it with a statement of the constituency, relevant area or country outside the UK in which they are resident.
New clause 82—Liability for false statements as to candidates and undue influence on regulated user-to-user services—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) is amended as set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) In subsection (1) after “makes” insert “hosts on a regulated user-to-user service”.
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with the hosting on a regulated user-to-user service if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.”
(5) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
(6) Section 114A (undue influence) is amended as set out in subsection (7) to (8).
(7) In subsection (5) after (c) insert—
“(d) on a regulated user-to-user service operated by or on behalf of P”
(8) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with an activity under subsection 5(d) if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any such activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5) a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).””
This new clause would enable operators of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, to be held liable for false statements relating to election candidates and activity amounting to undue influence in elections, if not swiftly removed from the service.
New clause 83—Proposals for regulation of social media during specified elections—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the regulation of content relating to specified elections on regulated user-to-user services during election periods.
(2) The specified elections for the purposes of subsection (1) are—
(a) UK parliamentary elections, and
(b) local government elections in England and Wales.
(3) The election periods for the purpose of subsection (1) are—
(a) in the case of a parliamentary election, the period between the issuance of a writ and the closure of polling, as set out in paragraph 1 (timetable) of schedule 1 of RPA 1983; or
(b) in the case of a local election, the period between the publication of the notice of election and the closure of polling, as set out in schedules 2 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where poll is not taken together with poll at another election) and schedule 3 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where the poll is taken together with the poll at a relevant election or referendum) of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.
(4) Proposals under subsection (1) must include measures to require regulated user-to-user services to—
(a) have regard to fairness and public confidence in specified elections in relation to the publication and promotion of content on the service; and
(b) remove content that is deliberately false or misleading relating to specified elections as quickly as is reasonably possible.
(5) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) The operation of the Online Safety Act 2023 with regard to regulated user-to-user services; and
(b) The operation of section 6 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code as established by section 319 (OFCOM’s standards code) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Broadcasting Code”).
(6) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) Ofcom,
(c) representatives of broadcasters subject to the Broadcasting Code,
(d) representatives of operators of regulated user-to-user services;
(e) representatives of registered political parties; and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay the proposals before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward proposals for the regulation of election-related content of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, during parliamentary elections and local Government elections.
New clause 84—Party descriptions in the form of instructions to voters—
“After subparagraph (2)(g) of section 28A of PPERA 2000 (descriptions) insert—
“(h) could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector on how to cast their vote.””
This new clause would prevent a candidate from registering a party description that could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector in how to cast their vote.
New clause 85—Permissible donors not to include overseas voters—
“At the end of subsection 54(2)(a) of PPERA (permissible donors) insert — “and who is not qualified to vote as an overseas elector under section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985”
This new clause would prevent donations being received from overseas voters.
New clause 86—Impermissible donations where donor’s income is not subject to UK tax liability—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 54 (permissible donors), subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (aa) (both as inserted by section 9(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and as substituted by section 10(1) of that Act);
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(ab) the person by whom the donation is to be made is using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on—
(i) income and gains arising from outside the UK; or
(ii) UK income or gains deemed to be foreign under the qualifying asset holding company rules.””
This new clause would mean that donations could not be accepted by parties if a donor was using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on foreign income.
New clause 87—Randomised listing of names on ballot papers—
“(1) Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 2, at end insert—
“14 The order of candidate surnames on ballot papers where more than one candidate is to be elected must be listed using a randomised system rather than names being listed alphabetically.””
This new clause would require the order of names on ballot papers for UK Parliamentary elections to be determined and listed using a randomised system.
New clause 88—Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider—
(a) the merits of a cap on political donations, and the level at which such a cap should be set, and
(b) the effectiveness of existing limits on campaign expenditure, including the appropriateness of the time period during which those limits apply.
(2) Any proposals made under this section must specify that the Royal Commission should publish its recommendations for a cap on political donations within twelve months of being established.
(3) Proposals published under this section must include proposals for the Royal Commission’s—
(a) terms of reference,
(b) membership, and
(c) funding.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to put forward proposals to establish a Royal Commission to consider and make recommendations for a cap on political donations, as well as the effectiveness of existing campaign expenditure limits.
New clause 89—Compulsory voting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of section 17 (registration without an application) of this Act coming into force, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England for individuals who are registered to vote.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine of £10.
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are prevented from participating in an election as a , including—
(i) those with a physical or mental incapacity, illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held conscientious or religious belief
(d) provision for pilots of compulsory voting in connection with any pilots undertaken under Section 20 of this Act (power to pilot changes to the voter registration process).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for compulsory voting, including piloting compulsory voting in connection with any pilots of changes to voter registration process.
New clause 91—Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
“(8A) Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders
(1) A person convicted and sentenced for a sexual offence or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime as part of the nomination process, otherwise that person is not validly nominated.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.””
This new clause would require sexual offenders who are subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare this requirement as part of the candidate nomination process.
New clause 92—Permissible donors not to include overseas electors registered for periods exceeding five years—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 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) is currently registered as an overseas elector; and
(b) that registration as an overseas elector has been for a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2B) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985””
This new clause would prevent overseas electors who have been registered as such for more than five years from being a permissible donor.
New clause 93—Impermissible donations and donors—
“(1) After section 54 of PPERA 2000, insert—
“54A Impermissible donations: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) A donation received by a registered party or regulated donee, must not be accepted by that recipient if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the donation derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(2) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the candidate or his election agent knows, or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.”
(3) After subsection Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“(2A) A person who would otherwise fall under section 54(2) is not a permissible donor if their donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(4) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) the donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom, and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(5) After section 54A of PPERA 2000 (declaration as to source of donation) insert—
“54AA Declaration as to source of a donation or loan: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a registered party by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the party—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating that the donation or loan, to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).”
(6) After subsection 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations) of PPERA 2000, insert—
“(1A) The duty in subsection (1) shall include a duty to take all reasonable steps to verify that—
(a) the donation does not derive directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation or loan; and
(b) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.
(1B) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Electoral Commission, make regulations exercisable by statutory instrument providing what the duty in subsection (1), to take all reasonable steps, requires.
(1C) Any regulations made under subsection (1B) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may make different provision for different cases.
(1D) Regulations to which subsection (1B) applies are not to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”””
This new clause prevents donations to parties and candidates where the donation derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations and verification requirements.
New clause 94—Government proposals to require declarations as to the source of a donation: money derived from cryptocurrency—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals to require—
(a) any person who causes a donation, loan, or other regulated transaction to be received by a political party to make a declaration that they have not converted cryptocurrency into fiat currency for the purposes of avoiding the restrictions of section 55A (cryptoassets) of PPERA 2000; and
(b) for any donation not accompanied by such a declaration to be returned to the donor.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to bring forward proposals to require people who donate to registered parties to declare that they have not converted money from cryptocurrency to fiat currency to avoid the restrictions.
New clause 95—Acceptance of regulated transactions—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 71G (valuation of regulated transactions) insert—
“71GAA Conditions for being a party to a regulated transaction
(1) A registered political party or other regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the financing of the regulated transaction is through the use of “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the financing of the regulated transaction derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(c) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to providing finance for the transaction.”
(3) After section 71HZA (declaration that residence etc condition is satisfied) insert—
“71HZB Declaration regarding the source of finance for regulated transactions
(1) A registered party or regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction unless they have received a written declaration from the other party to the transaction where that party is an individual stating that to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, that the transaction meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit that constitutes "criminal property" within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).””
This new clause prevents loans being provided to registered parties and regulated donees where the financing of the transaction derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations.
New clause 96—Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), at the end insert “(but this is subject to subsection (2ZA))”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) An individual registered in an electoral register who at the date of a donation qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency is only a permissible donor for the purposes of this Part if—
(a) the individual was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes,
(b) the individual has a Unique Taxpayer Reference, and
(c) the individual holds, and has held for at least the past 12 months, sufficient funds that may be charged to tax in the United Kingdom that are at least equivalent to the value of the donation.
(2ZB) For the purposes of subsection (2ZA)—
(a) whether a person qualifies as an overseas elector is to be determined in accordance with section 1A of the Representation of the People Act 1985;
(b) whether a person was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013.””
This new clause limits permissible donors who are overseas electors to those who have previously been resident in the UK for tax purposes, have a Unique Taxpayer Reference and holds funds that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.
New clause 97—Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions—
“In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (investigatory powers of Commission), after paragraph 1 insert—
“Power to require disclosure from financial institutions
1A(1) The Commission may give a disclosure notice to a financial institution requiring the institution—
(a) to produce, for inspection by the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission, any documents which—
(i) relate to the income and expenditure of an organisation or individual to which paragraph 1 applies, and
(ii) are reasonably required by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out their functions; or
(b) to provide the Commission, or a person authorised by the Commission, with any information or explanation which relates to that income and expenditure and is reasonably required by the Commission for those purposes.
(2) A financial institution to whom a disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) In this paragraph, “financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).””
This new clause gives the Electoral Commission the power to require information from a financial institution relating to the income and expenditure of political parties and associated individuals.
New clause 98—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) By 1 July 2027, 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 99—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 39 (false statements: offence), in subsection (1), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(3) In section 44 (supplementary provisions about auditors), in subsection (4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(4) In section 54A (declaration as to source of donation), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(5) In section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), in subsection (3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(6) In section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(7) In section 71T (declaration by treasurer in transaction report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(8) In section 73 (notional campaign expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(9) 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”.
(10) In section 86 (notional controlled expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(11) In section 94F (authorised expenditure in excess of targeted expenditure limit), in subsection (6), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(12) In section 95C (related offences), in subsection (2), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(13) In section 99 (declaration by responsible person as to return as to controlled 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”.
(14) In section 99A (declaration by responsible person as to statement of accounts), 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”.
(15) In section 112 (notional referendum expenses), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(16) 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”.
(17) In Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and members associations)—
(a) In paragraph 6A(5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(b) In paragraph 6B(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(c) In paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(18) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations, in paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(19) In Schedule 19A (reports of gifts received by unincorporated associations making political contributions), in paragraph 6(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(20) In Schedule 19B (investigatory powers of Commission), in paragraph 13(3), 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 certain offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false statements or declarations are made in relation to election expenses, an offence is committed if the person has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are doing so.
New clause 100—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 “the specified amount”;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for “£7,500” substitute “the specified amount”;
(c) after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In this section, the specified amount is—
(a) where subsection (2) applies and, to the best of the knowledge or belief of the individual giving the written declaration under subsection (1), the person other than P is not a permissible donor, £500;
(b) in all other circumstances, £7,500.””
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) if the source is not a permissible donor.
New clause 101—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.
New clause 102—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—
“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must each produce and publish an annual report about—
(a) the risk of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations, and
(b) the adequacy of any systems designed to address risks of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations.
(2) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
“controlled donation” means—
(a) a donation to a registered party, individual or members association that is subject to Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) a donation to a candidate or their agent that is subject to Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983;
“foreign interference” includes the commission of a relevant electoral offence to which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 applies (foreign interference in elections).”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) to make annual reports about the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
New clause 103—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
“54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6ZA (1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6A (1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(5) 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 introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets to registered political parties, regulated individuals and associations linked to political parties, electoral candidates and their agents. The new clause prevents such donations from being accepted unless the donation or transfer complies with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission. This will operate to prohibit such donations until such time as the Commission has made such regulations in order to control cryptoasset donations.
New clause 104—Electoral Commission: Education of young people about electoral information—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After Section (13A) insert—
“13ZA Education of young people about electoral information and media literacy.
(1) The Commission shall promote awareness among people under the current age of registration to vote of—
(a) access to independent and impartial information relating to elections;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003; and;
(c) disinformation and misinformation relating to elections, including information generated using artificial intelligence.
(2) The Commission shall perform their functions under subsection (1) in such manner as they think fit but may, in particular, do so by carrying out programmes of education or information to promote awareness of any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to promote access to information relating to elections and media literacy to young people to support the recognition of partisan information and mis- and disinformation, including content generated by AI.
New clause 105—False statements as to candidates: deepfakes—
“In section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), making or publishing any electronic communication, including moving images and images incorporating text, that has been generated using artificial intelligence deepfake technology which includes an impersonation of a candidate that depicts the candidate saying or doing something that did not occur commits an offence unless the conditions in subsection (1B) are met.
(1B) The conditions in this subsection are—
(a) any reasonable person would recognise the content of the communication as, parody, caricature or artistic expression; or,
(b) the communication is clearly and prominently identified as fictional, altered or artificially generated.””
This new clause would mean that publishing or making AI generated deep fakes is included in the meaning of “making or publishing any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate” for the purpose of the offence of making a false statement as to a candidate.
New clause 106—Removal of right to vote from Commonwealth citizens—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—
“(c) is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; and”
(4) In section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government electors)
(a) in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”,
(b) for subsection (3)(c) substitute—
“is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland”,
(c) in subsection (6) omit the words from “Commonwealth” to “such leave”.”
This new clause would remove the right of Commonwealth citizens who are not British citizens to vote in parliamentary elections and in local government elections in England and Wales.
New clause 108—Limitations on postal voting—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 2 (power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters) insert—
“2A Postal voting entitlement restricted to serving members of the armed forces and those unable to vote in person
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no person is entitled to vote by post at a parliamentary or local government election unless the person is a serving member of the armed forces of the Crown or unable to vote in person.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “serving member of the armed forces of the Crown” means a person who—
(a) is a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces (within the meaning given by section 59(1) of this Act), and
(b) is serving with the armed forces on the date of the poll.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of declaration or evidence required to establish entitlement under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the categories of persons who are unable to vote in person.””
This new clause would limit postal voting to serving members of the armed forces and other persons who are unable to vote in person.
New clause 109—Protection against controlling and coercive in-person voting—
“(1) Section 62C of RPA 1983 (influencing voters at polling booths) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may require that persons, who appear to have arrived at the polling station together, or who are otherwise associating with each other, enter the polling station and cast their votes one at a time in order to ensure that there is no undue influence.
(7) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may speak to any voter to determine, in general terms, the voter’s ability to understand—
(a) the voting process; and
(b) the English or Welsh language.
(8) If the presiding officer or representative has concerns over the voter’s ability to understand either matter referred to in subsection (7), the presiding officer shall—
(a) place the ballot paper aside, mark it as belonging to the voter, and it shall not be counted; and
(b) inform the voter that the vote has been set aside and of the right of appeal under subsection (9).
(9) The person whose vote has been set aside under subsection (8) may appeal to the magistrates’ court (or, in Scotland, the sheriff court) for an order that the vote be counted, and such an appeal must be made no later than 48 hours after the close of the poll and the court shall list the matter within 48 hours.
(10) A person who does not comply with the requirement of a presiding officer or representative under subsection (6) is guilty of an offence under this section and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months (or both).””
This new clause would allow presiding officers or their representatives to require voters to vote separately and to set aside votes from voters where there are concerns about their ability to understand the voting process or language.
New clause 110—Election expenses for parliamentary by-elections—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 90ZA (meaning of “election expenses”)—
(a) In subsection (4), after “expenses” insert “other than for a parliamentary by-election”
(b) After subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, election expenses in connection with a parliamentary by-election are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election if they are incurred—
(a) by the candidate or his election agent,
(b) by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent to incur expenses, or
(c) by a registered political party in the name of which the candidate has been nominated, for the purposes set out in subsection (4B)
(4B) The conditions in this subsection are that they relate to—
(a) a candidate;
(b) the constituency in which the election is taking place; or
(c) the by-election;
and are intended to influence electors in the constituency in which the election is taking place.””
This new clause would ensure that national party expenditure directed at promoting a candidate or campaign in a parliamentary by-election counts towards the candidate's spending limit, preventing national party campaign activity from circumventing constituency campaign spending limits.
New clause 111—Cap on donations of more than £5,000 a year from a single individual to parties and candidates—
“(1) After section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation or gift from an individual registered in an electoral register if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of the year to any one recipient exceeds £5,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after subparagraph (b) insert—
(a) the person by whom the donation would be made would have made a donation or donations to the candidate or his election agent over the course of the year which exceed £5,000 unless the donation is made by the candidate to themselves.””
This new clause will prevent donations in one calendar year from a single donor to a single candidate or individual party that exceed a total of £5,000.
New clause 112—Ban on donations from companies—
“(1) In section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000, omit subsection (2)(b).
(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make further provision to prevent regulated donees from accepting donations from companies.
(3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) the Electoral Commission, and
(c) any other persons who the Secretary of State thinks necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause prevents companies from donating to political parties, and requires the Government to bring forward regulations to prevent companies from donating to other regulated donees.
New clause 118—Education about electoral and democratic systems in schools—
(1) Section 13 of PPERA 2000 (education about electoral and democratic systems) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1B) The Commission shall carry out programmes of education to promote awareness of children aged 13 and over of current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems.
(1C) Programmes under subsection (1B) must include—
(a) information to enable them to register and vote as soon as they become eligible to do so;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003;
(c) political confidence and electoral participation among disadvantaged groups, including—
(i) girls and young women;
(ii) people from lower socio-economic backgrounds,
(iii) ethnic minority groups,
(iv) disabled people; and
(v) any other groups facing barriers to political and electoral participation identified by the Commission;
(d) such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine.
(1D) The Commission shall carry out programmes of teacher training and continuing professional development for the purposes of providing programmes under subsection (1B).”
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (1B), a system is “pending” when arrangements for giving effect to it have been made by any enactment but the arrangements are not yet in force.””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to carry out education programmes for young people ahead of being eligible to vote, and training for educators on providing such information.
New clause 119—Election material only in languages native to the British Isles—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 110 (details to appear on election publications) insert—
“110ZA Election publications to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) A person shall not print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any bill, placard, poster or printed document to which section 110(1) of this Act applies unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(3) In the case of a candidate or election agent, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
(3) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (4) below.
(4) After section 143 (details to appear on election material) insert—
“143ZA Election material to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) No election material shall be published unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(4) In the case of a registered party or its officers, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(5) In this section—
“election material” has the meaning given by section 143ZA(1) of this Act),
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would require election material to be published only in English, Welsh, languages native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats such as Braille or BSL.
New clause 120—Donation cap on UK-based donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee, or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person, during the course of that calendar year exceeds the limit set out in subsection (5).
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) a trade union’s political funds, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund during a calendar year is no less than the total donations made by that union during the same year; and
(b) that the trade union is taking all reasonable steps to comply with Chapter VI of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(5) The limit for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) for the calendar year in which this Act is passed, £500,000;
(b) for the calendar year following the passage of this Act, £100,000; and
(c) for the second and each subsequent calendar year following the passage of this Act, an amount specified by regulations made under subsection (6).
(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify a limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) within two years of the passage of this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) and (5)(b).
(8) Regulations under subsection (6) or (7) must provide a limit for the purposes of subsection (1) at an amount the Secretary of State considers appropriate which does not exceed £500,000.
(9) In considering the level of the limit for the purposes of subsection (8) the Secretary of State must commission and have regard to advice from the Electoral Commission.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) and (7) may provide for—
(a) requirements to make declarations, reports, and to create and keep records and receipts;
(b) anti-evasion provisions, including the aggregation of donations made by individuals connected to unincorporated associations and legal entities also making donations; and
(c) the amendment, repeal or revocation of any enactment, including provisions within this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
This new clause would ensure an immediate donations cap of £500,000, decreasing to £100,000 in the second calendar year, and requiring the Secretary of State during this time to set an appropriate permanent donations cap by regulations.
New clause 121—Requirement for Electoral Commission recommendation to vary specified sums or percentages—
“(1) Section 155 of PPERA 2000 (Power to vary specified sums or percentages) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (1) only if the order gives effect to a recommendation made by the Electoral Commission.
(1C) The Electoral Commission must make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1B) at least once every five years.
(1D) In making a recommendation under subsection (1C), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the fairness of elections,
(b) the effect on political parties, and
(c) public confidence in the integrity of elections.”
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This new clause would require changes to specified sums or percentages specified in PPERA 2000 to be based on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which would be required to review those amounts at least once every five years.
New clause 122—Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out an equality impact assessment of the proposed extension of the franchise in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must within nine months lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) the equality impact assessment required by subsection (1); and
(b) a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the equality impact assessment.
(3) The Secretary of State may not bring Part 1 of this Act into force until the report specified in subsection (2)(b) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause is connected to Amendment 152 and facilitates a debate on the equality impact of the proposed General Election franchise change on young people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which an offence is not committed by selling them alcohol.
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they may enter into a marriage.
Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they attain the age of majority, including for the purposes of obtaining a mortgage or owning property.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in paragraph (3) for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 51, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in paragraph 3 for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “the age of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in paragraph (3) for “the age of 18 years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 59, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “eighteen” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 53, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 60, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ’18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘the age of 18’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 54, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 61, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Government amendments 138 and 139.
Amendment 29, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) A registration officer must register a person who is not, for the purposes of section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector) of this Act, resident at any address in the United Kingdom, in a relevant register maintained by the officer if—
(a) the officer is aware of the person’s name and date of birth,
(b) the officer is aware that the person is a homeless person,
(c) the officer is aware of a local connection as set out in section (7B) (notional residence: declarations of local connection) of this Act,
(d) the person is not registered in the register,
(e) the person appears to the officer to be of voting age and entitled to be registered in the register,
(f) the officer has given the person a notice in accordance with section 12B (1) in relation to the register,and
(g) either (or both) of the following applies—
(i) the response period specified in the notice (in accordance with section 12B(3)(d)) has ended;
(ii) during that period, the person confirmed to the officer that the person wishes to be registered in the register under this section.”
This amendment would create a duty on registration officers to automatically register people who are homeless and are otherwise eligible to be registered.
Government amendments 140 and 141.
Amendment 13, page 44, line 26, leave out clause 35.
Amendment 4, in clause 41, page 50, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After rule 6 insert—
“Enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration
6AA (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration that they assent to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain an enhanced DBS certificate if elected.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be obtained.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule, “enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997.””
This amendment would require candidates in a parliamentary election to agree to undertake and fund an enhanced DBS check if elected, to be obtained from an organisation to be designated by the Secretary of State.
Government amendment 63.
Amendment 2, page 60, line 1, leave out clause 47.
This amendment is linked to NC14.
Government amendments 64 to 68.
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) the source and origin of the funds with which the donation was made,
(db) any connections that the person from whom the donation is received has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons, and”.
This amendment will require a party to take into account the source of the funds with which the donation was made and any links the donor has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 132, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) whether the donor, or a person connected with the donor, has at any time been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, bribery, corruption or money laundering (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere),
(db) the extent to which the donation, or the funds used to make it, derive from or have passed through a person connected with the donor as mentioned in paragraph (da),”.
Amendment 33, in clause 58, page 69, line 8, leave out “the party” and insert “a reasonable person”.
This amendment would require a party to take into account any other risk factor that a “reasonable person” rather than “the party” considers to be relevant when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 69, line 10, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 13 and insert
“only if the regulations would give effect to a recommendation of the Commission.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could only by regulation amend the risk factors that must be considered by parties when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58 if doing so gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
Amendment 133, in clause 58, page 69, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da) and (db), a person is "connected with" the donor if—
(a) they are the donor's spouse, civil partner, parent, child or sibling;
(b) they are a person with significant control over the donor (within the meaning of section 54E or54F); or
(c) they have, directly or indirectly, provided or arranged any part of the funds used to make the donation.
(2B) A conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2)(da) if it is spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, unless the sentence imposed exceeded four years.”
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 69, line 31, at end insert—
“(f) the definition of “high-risk jurisdictions” for the purposes of subsection 54C(2).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31 and would require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance on the definition of a “high-risk jurisdiction”.
Government amendments 142 and 69.
Amendment 14, in clause 60, page 73, line 6, leave out
“set out in subsections (2) to (6)”
and insert “follows”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in clause 60, page 73, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
“(2) In section 54 (permissible donors) omit subsections (2)(b) and (2)(f)”.
This amendment would prohibit the acceptance of corporate donations by registered political parties.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 134, in clause 60, page 73, line 32, 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.
Amendment 135, in clause 60, page 74, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) 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 is they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Government amendments 71 to 76.
Amendment 151, in clause 60, page 78, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(3A) The amount of the person’s remaining available profits at the time of the donation’s receipt by the party is calculated as follows—
Step 1 Add together the person’s profit for each financial year within the relevant period to give “the step 1 total”.
Step 2 Divide the step 1 total by the number of relevant financial years to give “the step 2 total”.
Step 3 Then deduct from the step 2 total the value of each relevant benefit (if any) that has already accrued to the party from the person in the calendar year in which the donation is received.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the amount of the person’s remaining available profits shall not include any profits of any connected persons.
(3C) For the purposes of this section “connected persons” has the meaning given in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons).”
This amendment would require the calculation of remaining available profits of a company or LLP to exclude any subsidiaries and be calculated on the average of the relevant financial years.
Government amendments 77 and 78.
Amendment 136, in clause 60, page 78, line 9, 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.
Government amendments 79 to 81.
Amendment 137, in clause 60, page 78, line 23, 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.
Government amendments 82 to 84, 28 and 86 to 99.
Amendment 1, in clause 73, page 94, line 26, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.
Government amendments 143 to 145.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 102, line 11, leave from “appoint” to the end of line 39 and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must consult with the Parliamentary Parties Panel established under section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of PPERA 2000 before commencing any provision in this Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State had consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel.
Amendment 152, in clause 82, page 102, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 of this Act comes into force once the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses as required under section (Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK).”
This amendment, together with NC122, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report in response to an equality assessment on extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK.
Amendment 5, in clause 82, page 102, line 29, at end insert—
“(ga) section 41(3A) (enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Government amendments 100 and 146.
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 102, line 31, at end insert—
“(ha) section [Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC19.
Government new schedule 1—Donations in cryptoassets: transitional provision.
Government new schedule 2—Regulated transactions involving cryptoassets.
Government new schedule 5—Loans etc to registered parties by companies and LLPs.
Government new schedule 6—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new schedule 7—Cap on donations to registered parties by overseas contributors: application and transitional provision.
Government new schedule 8—Cap on loans etc to registered parties by overseas contributors.
Government amendments 147 to 150 and 101 to 122.
Amendment 35, in schedule 8, page 158, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 36 to 39, would require a risk assessment to take place for donations that exceed more than £7,500 to a recognised third party.
Amendment 36, page 159, line 6, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 37, page 159, line 14, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 38, page 159, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 39, page 159, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 40, page 164, line 36, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
This amendment, together with amendments 41 and 43, lowers the threshold at which donations to candidates at elections must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 41, page 164, line 39, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 43, page 164, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 44, page 167, line 10, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
This amendment together with Amendments 45 to 48, lowers the threshold at which donations to accredited campaigners in recall petitions must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 45, page 167, line 18, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 167, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 167, line 30, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 48, page 167, line 41, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Government amendments 123 to 131.
Amendment 12, title, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may be sold alcohol in licenced premises”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 55, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may enter into a marriage”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 62, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age of majority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Florence Eshalomi
The Representation of the People Bill is central to our plan for fixing politics. Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to show the value of participating in our elections, but the reality is that too many people have lost faith in politics, and we must address the reasons for that. At the heart of this must come measures to reassure the public that the elections they are voting in are fair and free from foreign interference. We must stand against the unprecedented tide of abuse faced by those who put themselves forward to represent their communities.
The Bill will secure our elections against those who threaten them, protect those who participate, ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and strengthen, preserve and modernise our elections for the next generation. It delivers our 2025 strategy for modern and secure elections. It takes forward the recommendations of the Rycroft review and meets our manifesto commitments. It sets the foundations for elections that are fairer and a democracy that is stronger.
Before I speak to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I thank those who participated in the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her tireless work in getting the Bill to this stage.
Cryptoassets have come up in our debates. Cryptoasset transactions create a new and clear route for untraceable money to enter our politics. These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions. This is to prevent malign actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the ban. If recipients fail to comply, they risk enforcement action and, potentially, criminal liability. The Government intend to end the ban once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are satisfied that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance from foreign interference. Ending the ban will therefore require further legislation.
We are also amending the definition of “donation” to include arrangements in which a property is used to pay for the expenses of a recipient.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I offer my warmest congratulations to her on her appointment to the role; she will be a brilliant Minister. She will know that many in this House welcome the update to the legislation proposed by Ministers to ban cryptoassets, but she will also know that the measures that have been proposed by His Majesty’s Government do not go far enough. In particular, they still permit money to be routed through crypto exchanges, turned into fiat and then donated on. Secondly, they still permit donations through things like memecoins. Will she look at the measures in new clause 34, which is supported by 51 Members of this House, so that over the passage of this Bill through this House and the other place, we can ensure that it is as tight and as tough as possible?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important and valuable contribution. It is right that a number of amendments are seeking to limit donations originating from cryptoassets. We agree that the anonymity of crypto transactions creates a worrying route for illicit actors to channel money into our politics. This is an area that the Government are definitely keen to continue to review, ensuring that we end any unintended loopholes that may still arise.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Minister refers to crypto’s anonymity of source. Does she not agree that it is difficult to know what the attraction of crypto is, other than the fact it allows someone to hide where the money comes from? Why not just be straightforward and simply ban its use? Not a temporary ban or a moratorium—just ban it. Why cannot people simply give old-fashioned cash to support political parties?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I know that the Committee has looked at this. The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to review the ban on cryptocurrency because this issue has cross-party support. We need to ensure that the money coming into our politics is clean and traceable.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her position. I know that many people, not only on the Government side, but on the Opposition side of the House, will be delighted that she has been made a Minister. Can I just challenge her a bit further, or ask for her guidance, on the moratorium point? The Government intend for the Electoral Commission to have strengthened powers to try to tackle the regulatory regime that will be created by the moratorium, but does the Minister not share my concern that if those responsibilities are not enshrined and given to the Electoral Commission in the correct way, this issue will not be as solved as we would want it to be?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member. It is a shame that we will not get to spar on this now that he has left the shadow Front Bench. This is a really big issue, and the Electoral Commission needs to be given the space to develop the right regulatory framework. As I mentioned earlier, any new additions or changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring back. I am mindful of time, so I will make more progress.
I turn now to the Government amendments that will impose an annualised limit on the amount that overseas electors can donate or otherwise contribute to the UK finance system. That will apply to individuals who have been resident outside the UK at any time in the current or previous calendar year, whether or not they are registered as an overseas elector during that time.
The Rycroft review noted two major concerns regarding donations from UK citizens resident overseas. First, it noted that investigating and tracing the origins of the funds used for such donations is more complex than for domestic donations. The review’s second concern was democratic fairness. We have to ask ourselves why should a wealthy individual who has minimised their contribution to the UK Treasury be able to make unlimited donations into our political system. The review proposed an annual cap of between £100,000 and £300,000 on the amount that an overseas elector can contribute into UK political finance. The provisions of the amendments seek to cap this at the lowest recommended threshold of £100,000 per annum.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some more progress.
To ensure the efficacy of this cap, we are introducing a minimum residency period. That will mean that an individual moving or returning to the UK will be subject to the £100,000 cap for the remainder of the calendar year, plus another full calendar year. Measures relating to overseas electors and those who have been registered as overseas electors will be retrospective to the date that they were announced on 25 March 2026. Again, that will prevent bad actors from funnelling money into our elections in advance of the change in the law. We are also applying the cap and a minimum residency period to individuals who move to the UK after 6 July and were not previously overseas electors. The £100,000 annual cap will apply per recipient on donations and regulated transactions made from 6 July until commencement, after which they will be treated in the same way as former registered overseas electors. Further amendments relating to the declarations required for this will follow in the Lords.
Dave Doogan
Just to develop the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s theme, the Minister is taking some steps to control foreign contributions and donations to politics, but why not just ban them? She touched herself on the malign influence of people who would seek to offshore their tax liabilities—not contributing to the business of Government—and then, from some offshore location, direct that Government in how to spend that money, which they will not be subject to the consequences of, and neither will they have to contribute. It is totally unjust. Why is it not banned?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman and refer him to my previous statement on this area.
Florence Eshalomi
I need to make progress. I have a number of areas and amendments to cover, and many Members want to comment in the debate.
Overseas electors and those who fall under the minimum residency period will be required to provide a declaration of any necessary information to the recipient to enable them to check whether the donation is permissible. This declaration must be provided before the donation can be accepted. The cap will apply UK-wide and will operate consistently across the political finance regime across UK elections.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about restricting donations. She has talked about loopholes and the new powers that the commission will have. One loophole I am concerned about is that around donations to candidates, the definition of “candidate”, and how that interacts with other parts of the legal framework. Will she share her thoughts on any progress that the Government are making on that loophole, and say whether there is a chance for it to be considered further?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important example of where loopholes might exist in this technical area. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on that issue as we continue to develop the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some progress.
Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure.
Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.
Florence Eshalomi
I must make progress.
Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight.
The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period.
Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors.
Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system.
As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading:
“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.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.]
The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his work in this role. He has left big shoes to fill, and I look forward to following in his footsteps as best I can. I would also like to register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), alongside whom I am so fortunate to be working, including on this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been incredibly helpful in handing over, and who has worked so hard on this Bill.
In the same vein, I thank the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill, and I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friends, too. I welcome the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith to her place, and I congratulate her. I know she is much liked and well regarded across the House, having chaired the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past few years. I look forward to working opposite her and her departmental colleagues.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with her on this point. I proudly represent my constituency of Harlow, and it is really important that I have that local accountability; that means a great deal to me. Does she agree that we need to take foreign interference in our electoral system really seriously? It is important that the be Bill be—as I believe it is—really solid, detailed and willing to make changes, because we recognise that malign influencers will do anything they can to weave their way into our political system.
Katie Lam
It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates.
Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out.
One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported
“the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.”
Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken
Emily Thornberry
The allegations that the hon. Lady makes are extremely serious, and should be based on robust evidence. To be told that “volunteers had reported” is not sufficient, and she must understand the implications of what she is saying, in terms of social coherence and undermining the very status of our democracy. I ask her to be a little more cautious, and to proceed on the basis of evidence.
Katie Lam
Polling station volunteers reporting what they have seen in their polling stations is evidence. It is not for us to decide what is appropriate to discuss in this Chamber. It is for us to talk about it, and for the public to decide. They can see this, and it was very well reported at the time.
Family voting is a direct assault on two important principles. The first is that each and every voter must be able to cast their ballot on the basis of their individual beliefs and interests. The second is that those ballots should be cast in secret, without pressure or oversight. These two principles are fundamental to the functioning of British democracy. That we live in a country where we have been able to take these things for granted is no small achievement, but it must be defended vigorously. Any practice that results in husbands instructing their wives how to vote, or allows fathers to instruct their daughters how to vote, is an insult to the liberties enjoyed by women in this country, and it must not be allowed to stand, yet this Labour Government have turned a blind eye. They have rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. Indeed, they are scrapping guidance to local councillors and councils about how to stop family voting. Our proposed new clause 62 would help to tackle this catastrophe.
Another favoured tactic of sectarian candidates is the use of foreign language in their campaign material. To return to the Gorton and Denton by-election, during the campaign, the Green party published leaflets in Urdu telling voters that if they wanted to
“give the Muslims a strong voice, give your vote to the Greens.”
Depressingly, this is far from the only example, although it is one of the most reprehensible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Katie Lam
When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.
Katie Lam
The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Could the hon. Lady confirm to the House whether the Conservative party has ever published election leaflets in particular constituencies or wards in languages other than English? I have a vague memory of seeing Conservative party election literature in community languages during elections in various parts of the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has memories of that as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Paul Holmes
Seeing as this is my amendment, I think I am allowed to intervene to speak on it. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her position, and I know she will agree that the reason why we tabled this amendment was that the Green party’s leaflet said, “Punish the Labour party for Gaza—vote Green.” It has every right to say that, although I would argue that it is divisive, but can I assist the shadow Secretary of State by saying, in response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), that it is Conservative party policy not to produce election literature in a language other than English during the short campaign, and that the Conservative campaign headquarters dismissed some of our candidates for doing so?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way for a constructive question?
Luke Taylor
I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.
Katie Lam
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I understand his point, but it is a deep, frightening and fundamental problem if we have people in this country who cannot operate in the shared language of our nation. I understand what he is saying, but there are two possible ways to deal with that problem, and I believe that the one he is suggesting will ultimately be deleterious to our nation and our democracy. We must make a choice—I think that is part of the point he is making—and I am making a different choice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Katie Lam
I have given way many times on this point, and I would like to make some progress.
The fundamental point about producing election literature in English or another language of the British Isles is that the public must be able to scrutinise what candidates are saying. We must put a stop to election literature in foreign languages once and for all. We have therefore tabled an amendment that would require that campaign material published during the regulated election period is not promoted or published in a foreign language. Instead, campaign material must be published in English or another native language of the British Isles. Those who engage in our democratic process must do so in the common language of public life—that much is the bare minimum.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) to her place. She has taken on an immensely challenging role, but one that I am sure will bring her great joy.
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, and a year has been an extremely long time for this Bill. The evidence of that is the hefty number of amendments that have been tabled; as each political event moves on and people fall on their swords, more amendments come forward. I know that it has been of real interest to Members across the House, as well as many civil society organisations, that the Bill should be crafted to respond to events as they happen. I pay tribute to the Bill team, who have responded incredibly well to the number of amendments that have been tabled and the legislative challenge that the Bill represents.
The Bill removes barriers to voting that were put in the way of electors. It protects our democracy, as my hon. Friend the Minister described, and there are extremely important measures on votes at 16, as well as on automatic voter registration and the powers that will be taken to pilot it, so that we can find those lost voters who fall out of our electoral system and bring them back into democratic engagement.
Committee stage was lively, and I certainly enjoyed it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes)—I think we struck something of an accord. I have to refer him back to one particular point in Committee when he said,
“We have a groundbreaking piece of legislation—I am sure when we get to Report stage, the Minister will now say in the Chamber, ‘the shadow Minister said this is groundbreaking legislation’. It has its bad points and very good points, but I accept that it is groundbreaking”.––[Official Report, Representation of the People Public Bill Committee, 16 April 2026; c. 393.]
Now, neither he nor I are the Minister or the shadow Minister, but I think we agreed on that point, and I thank him for the spirit in which he and other members of the Committee conducted themselves.
What we have to remember is that any political party, candidate or elected representative who abides by the rules that this legislation sets will be able to flourish in our political system, and those who do not can expect to be held very firmly to account. The only point on which I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—who I welcome to her place—is in urging my Labour colleagues to continue working constructively with other political parties. It is not the case that we as a Government have not engaged on this legislation. We have been at great pains to do so, and I urge her to continue to engage not only as the Bill progresses through this House and the other place, but as we go through the secondary legislation that falls from it.
My final point is about the Rycroft review. The final recommendation from Philip Rycroft’s review concerned the organisation of the civil service in response to democracy and elections. He suggested that a permanent secretary be appointed to look after democracy and elections. We have just had the statement from the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), about rewiring public services and government. It often felt to me that many of the areas that this legislation covers do not fall just within the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; they fall within the remit of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and even the Home Office. I urge the Secretary of State to consider all these things in the round and whether a more strategic Government position could be found in taking this legislation forward. There is sometimes a tension between the powers of the MHCLG and the powers of other Departments. I am sure that that will be debated this afternoon.
It was an enormous privilege to take this Bill through Second Reading and Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing the Bill back in such a timely way on Report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart
Let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister, who I very much welcome to her place. In particular, I thank her predecessor, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who has shown with her comments today the grace and thoughtfulness with which she conducted herself throughout the whole process. We did not agree on everything in the Bill Committee—indeed, all members of the Bill Committee did not agree—but we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. I am grateful for the work that the other members of the Bill Committee put in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, given her hugely relevant experience as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. It would be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft’s efforts in conducting his review, the recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with.
I do not think it will surprise anyone, however, that we Liberal Democrats think much more could and should be done. The political freedoms and assurances we have relied upon for decades are increasingly vulnerable to insidious, hostile actors. We saw an entirely unnecessary by-election over the summer. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and was brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Our rules should not permit a Member under investigation to trigger a by-election and then walk straight back in here at the public’s expense, and that is precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. However, I do not believe it was selectable, so I will move on.
That saga was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics, with millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped donations and direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It is totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from, and that is a major omission from the Bill. New clause 88 would require the Secretary of State, within three months of Royal Assent, to publish proposals for a royal commission to consider a cap on political donations and the level at which that cap should be set, and whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose. It would require those proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and the commission would have to report within 12 months. It is a straightforward request. It does not demand or impose limits without buy-in. It does not ask any Member to sign up to a particular figure. It takes a conversation that has been going on for the better part of 20 years or more, and gives it a proper remit, a proper deadline and a proper independent home.
I want to be fair to the Government, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about the defending democracy taskforce yesterday, but we need to hear more detail about how it will function, particularly around money coming into political parties in and around our politics, how its recommendations will come into force and, importantly, when they will come into force. The threat is real, the threat is now, and urgent action is vital.
We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses 9 and 10 would introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing donations from those who are or have been members of, or political advisers to, foreign Administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence. New clauses 11 and 12 would require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign-linked donations. Taken together, they are a natural extension of the “know your donor” scheme, which this Bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the public have that right, too.
Money is not the only way in which influence is bought. We now live in a world where a handful of people own the platforms and write the algorithms that decide what millions of our constituents see about politics every day. When the owner of a social media platform can openly discuss handing tens of millions of pounds to a British political party, the danger is in plain sight, and the Bill does not meet the moment. The Government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, AI-generated content and the clear labelling of digital campaign material. Those were not wrecking amendments; they were an offer of cross-party work on a threat that is moving faster than we are legislating. I ask the Government even now to commit to the real-time disclosure of donations and a publicly searchable database of every pound spent on online political advertising, so that voters can see who is trying to influence them and with whose money. That will be more important as we extend the franchise.
The Lib Dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we have campaigned on it for decades, but we are concerned that the current voter registration system does not work well for young people. If we want votes at 16 to be a success, we need the voter registration improvements that the Bill enables to be implemented in time for the next general election. I would welcome hearing some reassurance from the Minister, when she is winding up, that they will be in place for the next general election.
My final point is the one that, I feel, matters the most. This Bill tidies the rules of the game, but it leaves the game itself untouched. There is no silver bullet for fixing our politics—it requires will, consensus and graft—but one thing that is shared by dozens and dozens of Members across the House is the understanding of the need for fairer votes. We cannot have a conversation about representing the people without addressing the elephant in the room: we have a voting system that handed one party two thirds of the seats in this House on barely a third of the vote. Millions of people cast ballots that changed nothing and elected no one, and then they are told to have faith in the result.
I therefore tabled new clause 8 to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity the Bill presents to rise to the occasion. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and lets Governments take voters for granted. No amount of tightening around the edges fixes a system that was out of date a century ago. Despite identifying the crisis of confidence in our political system in their 2024 manifesto, this Government have yet to back even modest steps towards making our voting system fairer, such as a national commission on electoral reform, as detailed in new clause—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before we delve into a rabbit hole about proportional representation, it might be helpful if I remind all Members that it is out of scope of the Bill.
Lisa Smart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the Government are putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that it prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed on the Floor of the House. We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the things we need to fix in our country, so we will support the Bill as a step forward. However, a step is not the final destination. Until this House finds the courage to give people a Parliament that actually reflects how they vote, we will not have restored trust in our democracy. We will keep making that case, and we will support this Bill as the beginning, but certainly not the end, of this work.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. Without wanting to upset you, I was going to talk about new clause 31. I will keep my comments on that to a minimum for fear of upsetting you.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 49 to 55 and amendments 56 to 62 to clause 1, which are in my name, and in support of amendments 6 to 12 to clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford).
Through the Bill, the Government have taken inconsistency to a new level. In their desire to give votes to 16-year-olds, they are bringing more confusion to the legal age of adulthood. In one breath they are giving votes to 16-year-olds, yet at the same time in another piece of legislation they are saying that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to use social media and there will be curfews for those under the age of 16.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I can see that she is clearly opposed to this measure. I remind her that about nine years ago she and I debated at Wilmslow high school. I remember she made a clear commitment then to the students that she would support giving them the vote at 16.
Esther McVey
The hon. Member clearly gave support; I had various caveats. As things have changed recently, children cannot get married now at 16, yet at the same time we do not think those under the age of 18 should be on social media. That is a new addition. We are changing the age of adulthood. Labour Members do not even think the brain is mature enough to be considered for criminal actions until the age of 25.
Esther McVey
Yes, that is right. Things are changing continually. The Bill goes against the age of adulthood, with lawmakers raising the minimum age for many different things. As a country we collectively agree that the age of 18 is adulthood, and with that come rights and responsibilities, and things we can and cannot do. Once we reach the age of 18, an individual can stand for election to this House, make decisions about their own medical treatment, enter into binding financial agreements, and buy cigarettes and vapes. They can even get a tattoo. Perhaps the greatest right of all is the right to vote and the responsibilities that come with that, yet under the Bill 1.7 million 16 to 17-year-olds will be granted the right to vote.
We could all see that the proposal was about fixing the right to vote. It was about ballot fixing. It was in the hope that the Labour party could win the next general election if it got this generation of young people to vote for it. Now that it has seen the latest polling and that young voters are turning Green, the Government might do what they do on a regular basis: screeching U-turns. That might be done not through common sense but self-interest. They might do another screeching U-turn here.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The shadow Secretary of State made a defence of the right for overseas electors to vote based simply on their citizenship. Why, when someone who does not live in this country can vote based on their citizenship, does the right hon. Lady argue that a 16-year-old with the same citizenship rights who lives here and contributes should not?
Esther McVey
We are talking about two completely different things. We are talking about the age of adulthood, the age at which we think people have the ability to weigh up everything that is going on and come to a decision. The House is saying that those young people cannot go on social media, should not be on certain types of iPhone and should not be able to do other things, yet at the same time they are mature enough to vote—inconsistency. I am saying that we need to be consistent: a bit of common sense and consistency would go a long way in this House.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
In line with that, is the right hon. Lady calling for the age at which one can get a job to be raised from 14 to 18, ruling out 16 to 18-year-olds from being able to work? Is she calling for the age at which one can learn to drive to be raised from 17 to 18? To follow her argument, it would be inconsistent not to support those things.
Esther McVey
I agree there are inconsistencies and we are trying to get them right. Unlike those on the Labour Benches, under whom unemployment always goes up every time they are in office, we want young people to get work experience and go to work. We have, for a long period of time, allowed driving at 17. But my goodness, those on the Labour Benches, for more inconsistency, would want it to go up! I am dealing with the matter at hand, which is voting for 18-year-olds. I am saying that for those on the Labour Benches it was more about vote rigging than whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote.
Esther McVey
I will carry on for a second.
We are not saying that 16-year-olds would be sent off to combat, nor would we be saying that the inconsistencies about the age of marriage carry on. In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage and civil partnerships is 18. Arranging a marriage for anyone under 18 is illegal. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, passed by Parliament only four years ago, revoked the previous legal provision that allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent. The legislation made it clear that marriage is an adult decision and that the law treats anyone under 18 as a child. The 2022 Act passed with cross-party support and the Labour Front Bench at the time supported it. Why did they believe then that people under 18 could not make the decision to marry, but now believe that they can make the decision to vote?
The same applies to property ownership and mortgages. My amendments 56 to 62 would link the age at which people are eligible to vote with the age at which they can obtain a mortgage or own a property. Our laws dictate that those under 18 lack full legal capacity, and therefore cannot enter into binding land or loan contracts. If 16-year-olds are not legally able to own a property or enter into a mortgage in their own right, why are they considered sufficiently mature to vote in elections?
If 16-year-olds are not sensible enough to buy alcohol—and that has been law in our country since 1923—why are they trusted to vote? I am pleased to support amendments 6 to 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, which would tie the age at which people can buy alcohol to the age at which they are eligible to vote. The question is simple: why have the Government decided that in respect of voting the age of 16 is adulthood, while in many other areas it does not meet the threshold?
We are told that votes at 16 are essential to engaging young people in our democracy and will empower them to participate in society and effect change, but which young people have the Government spoken to? I have spoken to many on my patch and have visited many local schools, and have found it interesting that many of them do not feel qualified and prepared enough to vote. We should bear in mind the impact of the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, where academic studies have shown that the boost in interest among young people has been short-lived and has failed to translate into wider political participation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Is it Conservative party policy to reverse the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland? Every single piece of evidence that we can point to suggests that engaging 16 and 17-year-olds makes them better citizens. Does the right hon. Lady seriously want to undermine that?
Esther McVey
If those in Scotland want to carry on with this vote rigging, they are fully entitled to do so, and I am sure that they will conjure up many other ways in which to do it.
This Government can wax lyrical as much as they like about the virtues of lowering the voting age, but we know how important it is for people to fully understand and appreciate what they are doing. It is the inconsistency that strikes me: 16-year-olds cannot buy alcohol, cannot have a tattoo, cannot be on the frontline and cannot get married, yet we are pushing for them to have a vote. It does not make sense at all. I therefore urge all Members to support my amendments and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, and to put aside their self-interest in relation to extra votes.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, which enables me to welcome my two work experience students, Maja and Stacey, to the Gallery. I am sure they are enjoying his speech.
Joe Morris
I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that.
I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes.
I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future.
I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed.
We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities.
The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the security of candidates. That is the motivation behind my new clause 81, which would automatically make all candidates’ addresses anonymous. Does she agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels?
Zöe Franklin
I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates.
Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level.
If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it.
I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her appointment as the Minister for Democracy. I thank her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for the work that she and the brilliant officials in the Department did on this very important Bill, and I thank the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I had the privilege of serving as her predecessor’s predecessor and working on the strategy that formed this important Bill.
This is a significant piece of legislation, and the proposal to bring forward votes at 16 is important, radical and necessary. It is right that we give young people the right to vote when they can participate in other areas of life, and when they get the vote, political parties will absolutely pay much greater attention to their interests. I would like to see whether those who oppose this particular change go and canvass for the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds when they have the vote. We certainly will, because we believe that it is important to encourage participation from an early age.
This Bill introduces important changes to tackle harassment and intimidation and to move towards automated voting, and it picks up on the important findings from the Rycroft review. This significant piece of legislation has been improved as it has gone through its different stages, and today marks another opportunity for my hon. Friend the new Minister to take on board some of the suggestions that have been made in the form of the amendments.
I express my support for new clause 34, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would beef up our resistance to cryptoassets flooding our political system. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that we are moving in the right direction, but we need to go further, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee also pointed out. For reasons that are well documented, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill has said, the Bill must include digital tokens and meme coins accepted into crypto-wallets, as defined by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work and provided an analysis to warn about the dangers of cryptoassets being used to drench our democracy with malign messages, fuelling populist hate and misinformation. We are seeing that play out in our streets and our communities at the moment. I do not think that I am allowed to make a plug for his excellent book on populism, but he has outlined that £200 million has already been spent in the UK on promoting division and undermining our democracy. That is terrifying. We need to put a stop to it, and that is why this Bill needs to go further. Nothing less than a full ban on crypto donations will do, and I hope that Ministers consider doing this now rather than coming back later.
I have seen the ability of the enormously talented group of civil servants to move at pace in amending legislation and being more and more ambitious over time in making this Bill much more significant—from the time I started working on it to the end of the period when the strategy was published and subsequently. Where there is a will, there will be a way. In the interests of moving away from the incremental changes to which the new Prime Minister has committed, I hope that we can get this done in one go. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to be bold and to get this done now.
Furthermore, I support new clauses 41, 47, 82 and 83, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), which seek to tackle online harms and online hate in the context of elections and deepfakes, especially videos purporting to depict politicians and candidates. This has become more and more dangerous and serious. In the 2024 election, only a handful of candidates were depicted in AI-driven deepfake images, which were already presenting disinformation and causing damage to candidates’ election chances. Now, these have become more and more sophisticated, more and more problematic and, at worst, damaging and dangerous. It means that the elector often cannot see the distinction between a real image of a candidate and a deepfake-created image.
Now—don’t get me wrong—I have seen some of those deepfakes, and some of them are quite entertaining. The problem is that the ones that are filled with poison and hate can do deep damage to the reputation of candidates. That is very damaging and is moving very fast. When citizens look at such material, we are asking a lot of them. We are asking them to make a distinction between what is real and what is fake in the context of social media, which is heavily funded with billions of pounds by tech companies. Ordinary citizens have to compete with that, and it is not feasible.
That is why it is really important that we make those changes. As I have said, when I worked on the election strategy that was the foundation for this Bill, it was challenging to get the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to do more. I therefore hope that those Ministers can work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and her Department to include the changes that are needed in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, so that we can get this done in one go, rather than waste time while damage is done at the speed of lightning in the form of deepfake and disinformation spreading, which is infecting our democracy and forcing candidates and elected representatives out of politics.
Increasingly, too many Members of Parliament, candidates who did not make it here and those in local government and other areas of public life are asking: how is it going to be at the next election? As well as trying to keep ourselves safe, how do we protect our reputations when lies are spreading at breakneck speed? What is the point, and how do we protect our families when these lies are being spread online? How do we compete with that as candidates? How do we protect our protected characteristics? People of colour and people from minority faiths are particularly targeted, and women—female candidates—are being subjected to a scale of misogyny and hatred using deepfake and disinformation on a scale and at a level that I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
At the 2024 general election, just 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted. That is a shocking systemic failure of our democratic process. It means that nearly half of all overseas electors who took the time to register, requested a ballot and tried to exercise their democratic right were effectively disenfranchised by international mail delays.
As Members of this House, our fundamental duty is to maximise participation in the democratic system we are privileged to represent. When we look around the world at regimes where the public voice is silenced or undervalued, we must redouble our efforts to prevent a democratic deficit here at home.
The amendments tabled by my Conservative colleagues offer practical, common-sense fixes to the deficit we see today, ensuring that all British citizens can partake in our great democracy and that the Representation of the People Bill lives up to its name, representing all those who belong to our nation in a fair and equal way. New clause 63 would address the core logistical bottleneck by permitting in-person voting at designated UK embassies and consulates across the globe. For British citizens who cannot rely on slow, unpredictable international postal transit, this would provide a secure and reliable alternative, allowing them to put their cross in a box on election day. It would work hand in hand with new clause 64, which would mandate a comprehensive review into overseas participation to establish best practice and expand registration. New clause 65 would introduce another simple improvement, allowing citizens to register on the electoral roll when renewing their British passport, which would dramatically boost engagement among our global community.
Having rightly expanded the overseas franchise in recent years, Parliament has a moral obligation to provide the administrative infrastructure to make that right meaningful. It is deeply regrettable that the Government have failed to incorporate these practical solutions into the core text of the Bill. We will continue to champion these measures to ensure that every British citizen, wherever they live, work or serve, can make their voice heard at the ballot box.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role. I also pay tribute to everyone who has played a part in this Bill to date, because for all our ambitions for the things we would like to change in the world, if the process by which we make those changes is not fair and free, we will not be able to achieve anything. We all know and understand that.
Like everybody else, I recognise that new clause 31 is out of scope. I would gently suggest to the shadow Minister that there are many versions of proportional representation and electoral reform—those of us who have nerded out over this for years know that. We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets.
I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on domestic abuse and those supported by many of my colleagues from east London—maybe that says something about politics in our part of town—about abuse of candidates. I know well what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) has been through, and it is a testament to her character that she is here fighting for change. I also support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on crypto donations. I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly.
We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics. It takes something for us in this House to be lectured by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but we are being lectured on this. It is like turkeys being told that Christmas is a good idea. IPSA has pointed out to us that only 28% of the public think that MPs care about their local community at all—so two thirds of our constituents think that we are here out of our own self-interest—and only 4% think that we are doing anything good for the country. The difficult question that we all have to take on the chin is: in whose interest do the public think we are acting? From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.
We have heard a lot of quotes today, so let me bring in William Blake, who said:
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but foresight is better”.
We have all seen it. We know that money is coming in. We know that this is something different, and we know enough to know that it is a problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will put in place an immediate five-minute time limit.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 88, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Government to establish a royal commission on political donations and campaign expenditure. It would examine the case for a donations cap review and whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective, and would report back within 12 months. Crucially, it would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges, because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithmic amplification, third-party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately.
When we knock on doors in our constituencies, or even when they are only our prospective constituencies, we are taking part in the most important act of our democratic system. We are listening to the concerns of citizens. We are empowering them to test us on our politics and to push us to champion their causes, and through taking forward the electorate’s concerns, we are giving them a voice. The principle is simple: one citizen, one vote. It is the basis of a democratic system. If a voter is particularly taken by our arguments, they may choose to donate to us to cover the cost of those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake, which some on the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly passionate about.
At this point, I will explain something that we did in Sutton to welcome the huge number of Hongkongers who moved to our borough and to my constituency over the last few years. We produced leaflets in their local language, so that those who did not have particularly strong English skills could read the information about our political party. They had travelled here, escaping the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, and escaping the crackdown on democratic rights in Hong Kong. I invite an intervention from the Conservative Benches to explain why that communication, in a language that was understood by those who had not long been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets, is such a bad thing. There are none.
When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably have been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or for posters and a loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped-out old Volvo of the kind that my dad used to go around his prospective constituency in the ’90s. However, our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. Today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors, has shifted so dramatically that the question is how we rise to the challenge of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law.
If we fail to answer that question, we condemn the voting public to powerlessness, as those with the deepest pockets and strongest influence rip our hands off the wheel of the ship of state. We cannot fail to address the modern challenges first posed by those who bankrolled the Brexit campaign, who promised to give back control to the public and then handed it straight to their oligarch friends. For those reasons, I was disappointed the Government did not use this Bill to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations.
Wealthy individuals are increasingly able to spend sums that would be completely beyond the reach of ordinary voters, while public confidence in the way politics is funded remains extremely weak. We can see how members of two parties in this Chamber have received more than £56,000 through X, a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch. It has an algorithm that he designs and the payments are therefore decided and funnelled directly to those political actors.
There will always be those with bigger pockets who can make a larger contribution to political parties and projects than others. The vast majority do so for the right, philanthropic or ideological, reasons. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has given a passionate explanation of why political donation through unions, with proper controls, is absolutely an appropriate way to deliver political support and political power to those groups of people who need that representation the most. However, when money has been flowing in from those who would do our country harm and who want to rip control of the state away from the voting public and turn our nation into a Russian-style oligarchy, and when democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. That is why new clause 88 is so important.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s ambitions in this Bill and the fact that they want to fix politics and for it to be fair and free from foreign interference. There is much to be enthusiastic about in the Bill, although in the five minutes I have been given to speak, I cannot go through it all. This might be the only such legislation that we have before the next general election, and I believe that it is incumbent upon us to prepare ourselves and our constitution for the possibility, God forbid, that a populist party might take control of our country. We are allowing ourselves to be wide open to all kinds of things.
The Foreign Affairs Committee did a report into foreign influence across Europe, and we saw a number of shocking things. I recommend the report to Members, if they are in any doubt about the ways in which malign actors, either state or non-state, are trying to influence and undermine democracies across Europe, but if we think that we are free of that because we are on the other side of the channel, we have got another think coming. We are so complacent about the things that can happen, that have happened and that might happen to our country next. We must protect ourselves. We must take this seriously.
There is not enough in this Bill to protect us. We must go further. I do not understand why we do not. For example, when it comes to disinformation from other countries trying to influence our democracy, how many Ministers do we have who are responsible for disinformation? We have seven. If we have seven Ministers for disinformation, we have no Minister for disinformation, but disinformation is undermining our democracy right now, and it will get worse coming up to the next general election. There is not enough in the Bill to be able to deal with that.
I ought to speak to my new clauses, including new clause 85, which are supported by the TUC and have been welcomed by Transparency International. I am proposing a complete ban on overseas voters donating to political parties. Why not? I do not understand why not. Rycroft says that foreign money is more difficult to trace and more difficult to ensure that it is clean. That is why he puts a £100,000 cap on it. Well, why do we not go further? We are the politicians. Why do we not just ban it? People can come to this country, live here, pay their taxes and get involved in our democracy. Then they can make donations. If they live somewhere else in a tax haven—tough, they cannot.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that all 3.5 million overseas electors should not be able to donate to political parties?
Emily Thornberry
Yes, I am. I am not getting into all the arguments about whether people who live abroad should have a vote—
Emily Thornberry
No, I have only got two minutes. Come on!
People should just pay their taxes and get involved. New clause 86 proposes that a donor would have to be a total citizen. It is not enough to come back to Britain and go, “Oh well, I’m here now. I’m going to pay a little bit of tax because there are various tax dodges and I can do that.” No, they have to be here paying their full whack of taxes, and then they can make donations to political parties. If they care so much about Britain and about democracy, they should come here and be a full citizen, in my opinion.
My new clause 84 relates to descriptions on ballot papers. At the moment, instead of having just “the Labour party” on the ballot paper, it is possible to have “the Labour party, the party of equality and fairness”—fair enough. However, at the last local elections, the Greens registered candidates with the Electoral Commission as “first choice candidate” or “lead candidate”, so that, in an election with three votes, there was an instruction on the ballot paper as to who someone should vote for. That is an abuse, and it should be stopped. That is what that new clause is about.
New clause 87 is about ballot papers always being in alphabetical order. I speak as a T. My constituents had to look very hard to find me, and fortunately they did, but when we vote in alphabetical order, the Ts are at the far end—and there were hardly any of us. It is definitely an advantage to be at the beginning of the alphabet. Why do we not have the Australian system, and just randomise it?
There is so much more that we could do. Although there are rumours that a group may discuss how much more we can do, will there really be enough legislative time to bring forward another Bill that will deal with the many problems we have?
My predecessor, 180 years ago, was the MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe. He brought in the massive Chartist petition—3.3 million people wanting to be allowed to vote. So many people had signed it that they had to take the doors off the Chamber to get all the bits of paper through. Presumably it did not go into the Bag behind the Chair, but there was that much enthusiasm—that was what democracy was about. I do not want to be an MP for Finsbury who sits back complacently and allows our democracy to be undermined. We have to fight back.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address.
Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation.
I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to. She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.
Danny Kruger
No, I am not going to give way.
It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way.
Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in—[Interruption]—including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change.
I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first. That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy.
Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles.
Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles. The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.
Danny Kruger
No, I will not.
The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language?
The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that.
Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her role. I share the confidence of the House, as has been expressed, from her excellent role as the Chair of the Select Committee, and I know that she will do her best in this role, too.
This Bill and the amendments we are discussing matter because they go to the heart of what all of us hear on the doorstep, which is that people simply do not trust in politics or in many of the people in it any more. Trust and turnout are regrettably at record lows. That is not an abstract complaint or something where it would be nicer if we had a bit more of it; it is corrosive to democracy itself, so this Bill is a significant and welcome step forward, to do things such as give young people a voice, iron out some of the inconsistencies in voter registration, and crack down on the money and abuse that too often poison our elections.
Taken together, a number of the amendments before us are a genuine opportunity to further rebuild that trust by making our voting system fairer, getting big money and dodgy money out of politics, and ensuring that everyone can safely, confidently, independently, secretly and, one day—who knows?—enthusiastically be able to cast their vote.
I want to make the broader point that I acknowledge and accept that there is a new clause that cannot be named which is no longer in scope, but I wish to express my regret that it is not. This Bill is an opportunity to go as far as possible in restoring trust. Many of us believe that that is now missing.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of the new clause that we are not talking about, because it is not in—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.
Darren Paffey
My point is that in addressing amendments 69,70, 80, 120, 72 and 48, as I intend to, there is a context. Many of us believe that the world of two-party politics no longer exists, and we need a political system that supports what every other amendment and every other part of the Bill seeks to do.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Bill gives us a real chance to defend and strengthen our democracy, and although it is not in the scope of the Bill, I hope that the Government will look in future legislation at electoral reform and proportional representation.
I have tabled new clauses 20 and 21 and supported many amendments because the Bill as it stands does not go far enough. New clause 21 enshrines in the Bill the principle of a cap on political donations. It is time to kick big money, foreign or domestic, out of British politics, and restore public trust in our political system. As I have said previously, the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires—foreign or otherwise—or corporate interests, should decide our country’s future in elections and referendums. I welcome the Government amendment on donations from overseas electors, but at present there is no limit at all on how much a single individual in the UK can give to a political party. New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on political donations, informed by an independent review, so we can ensure that the cap is sustainable.
The Bill’s title is “Representation of the People”. New clause 20 would extend the parliamentary franchise—that representation—to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and would extend the local government franchise in England on that same basis. Having leave to remain does not automatically give someone the right to vote, no matter how long they have been in the UK, and we now have different franchises in relation to EU citizens living in the UK following Brexit. That means that millions of residents have no right to vote at all.
Like many of us, I represent a constituency where people who have lived here for years, who pay their taxes, work in our hospitals and run our businesses, still have no vote in the elections that decide who represents them. Residents pay council tax but some of them cannot vote on who is going to be in charge of their refuse collection. As the old American revolution slogan goes,
“taxation without representation is tyranny.”
Voting based on residency rights means that democratic participation is extended fully to people across the whole of British society.
I want to set out where else I think the Bill needs to go further, because the argument runs the same way throughout: open up participation and representation, close down improper or malign influence, restore trust in our politics, and raise the standards for the campaigns we run. On widening participation and making voting genuinely accessible, I want to see a proper feasibility study into overseas voting, because British citizens abroad still face real, practical barriers to casting a ballot. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard from British electors living abroad about the challenges and barriers they face just to exercise their right.
I support the Government extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is really brilliant news for our young people and for representation. I welcome the case for automatic registration, so that the right to vote does not depend on people navigating forms.
On the integrity of political money, which is where I believe the Bill still has the most to tackle, the same logic that applies to new clause 21 applies with even more costs. The loopholes that currently let donations flow from foreign Administrations, from those linked to political violence and from undeclared foreign income and corporate interests, like those fossil fuel companies, have no place in our politics and I want them closed. I fully support closing the loophole currently exploited by non-permissible donors giving in small amounts, and I support tightening the rules on cryptoasset donations, which are far too easy to hide. Parties should be required to carry out proper due diligence on where donations actually come from, and I support a proper independent look at spending limits.
Finally, on standards and the world in which we now campaign, candidates deserve proper safety guidance. AI-generated campaign material must be honestly labelled, and I want the Electoral Commission to have strong powers over online harms and disinformation, along with proper measures against foreign interference. Our democracy should be open to everyone who lives under its laws, and closed to the money, undue influence and manipulation that nobody voted for.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring.
I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington).
Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system.
AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House.
I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.
Brendan O’Hara
During this Bill’s Second Reading back in March, I said that the SNP generally welcomed its introduction, particularly its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We on the SNP Benches still do. Evidence is always helpful; unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but Scotland has had this in place for 12 years, and it has been an unqualified success. No serious person is planning to backtrack on it.
That said, we do still have serious concerns about the Bill, because what is currently on offer is a far cry from what the Labour party promised during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. Back then, we all recognised that that Act was an appalling piece of legislation; it was nakedly partisan, and quite rightly, when opposing it, the Labour party promised to shred it. Now it is in power, I fear that it has chosen to tinker rather than shred. We can see for ourselves the levels of frustration that exist on the Labour Benches, because Labour Members know that this Bill was an opportunity to undo great democratic harms that were caused by the 2022 Act and introduce an entirely new system—one that would have fairness, equality, transparency and accountability at its heart. I fear that the Bill as it currently stands squanders that opportunity.
The clearest manifestation of that frustration is the number of amendments to the Bill that have originated from the Government’s own Back Benches. There are scores of amendments—215 pages of them. I want to highlight a few that I believe would have significantly improved the Bill, had the Government taken them on.
New clause 34, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), would tighten up cryptocurrency. He explained in an intervention earlier that the Government’s position in the Bill does not go nearly far enough, and we agree. New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would extend the franchise to those with indefinite leave to remain. Such a system has been in place in Scotland for more than six years, and it works well and has been entirely uncontroversial.
Chris Curtis
Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, may I take a moment to put on record how much I enjoyed serving on the Select Committee under the chairship of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)? I am proud of the work we did together, including on tackling rough sleeping and confronting Britain’s housing crisis. I know she will take that into government as she takes on her new role.
New clause 56, standing in my name, concerns the implementation of automatic voter registration. It is hopefully slightly less controversial than some of the other topics we have covered today, and I hope the Minister will support it, given that the new clause stood in her name until just a few weeks ago. Fundamentally, if we want high participation in our elections, we should make it as frictionless and easy as possible for eligible citizens to take part.
We know that participation is too low. Turnout at the 2024 general election was a little under 60%, which was the lowest figure since 2001. However, that does not tell us the whole story, because the published turnout figure is the percentage of registered voters who go out to vote in the election. It excludes the estimated 8 million people, according to the Electoral Commission, who are eligible to vote but do not do so, because they are not on the electoral register. That could be because they are registered incorrectly, they have moved home or they did not get around to registering. Meanwhile, research from the University of Manchester showed us that we make it harder to register to vote here in the UK than almost any other democracy.
This problem is not evenly distributed across our constituencies or across demographics. Young people, private renters, disabled people and those who are more transient are all less likely to be registered to vote. For too long, we have operated a slightly absurd system whereby the British state can know where you live, your age, your demographics and whether you are eligible to vote, and yet you still have to fill out a separate form to be registered to vote.
The Bill creates a new process through which electoral registration officers can register eligible voters without requiring them to make that separate application once the necessary commitments are met. It allows existing registrations to be updated without requiring somebody to submit a fresh application, and it creates a data sharing and piloting framework needed to move towards a genuinely modern system of electoral registration. These are all brilliant things that really move automatic voter registration in the right direction.
The purpose of new clause 56 is simply to ensure that we now turn that legislative framework into a reality. At the moment, the Bill gives us the architecture for automatic registration. What it does not yet give us is a clear public timetable for when the different parts of that architecture will actually be implemented. It would be good to hear from the Minister something on that timetable in her closing remarks today. We should have a clear pathway to delivering substantial change during this Parliament, which the Electoral Commission says is possible. New clause 56 asks for just that. Within two months of the new clause coming into force, the Government would have to publish a plan setting out the steps needed to implement registration without an application, the dates by which those steps would be completed, when they expect regulations for the registration pilots to be laid before Parliament, and how many additional people they expect to be registered by 15 August 2029 as a result of implementing part 2.
I will just make one very quick point on the pilots. I mentioned it on Second Reading and I still think we need a response. The fear about piloting automatic voter registration projects is that if they are done on local authority boundaries, as they would be, because local authorities are responsible for voter registration, there might be constituencies—Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a perfect example, given that it is in both Lambeth and Southwark—where one part stands under the new scheme being piloted and another part of it does not. That can create a problem if part of one party’s votes come from a system where the registration has gone up and another part does not. So, may we please get a commitment from the Government or the Electoral Commission that when they are running pilots they will consider that point and preferably not run them in places where constituency boundaries do not line up?
Finally, I completely understand the Government’s arguments that reform cannot happen overnight and that we need to do it securely, accurately and carefully, especially when it comes to ensuring that only those who are eligible to vote, go out and vote. The Government have made the right decision to put a legislative framework in place for automatic and direct voter registration. We just need to know when it will be implemented.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to speak to amendment 15 and new clause 30, tabled in my name, and to new clauses tabled by other colleagues from across the House. First of all, I welcome the new Minister to her place and I welcome the Bill. I always like to start where there is common ground. It is certainly true that there are steps forward in the Bill: the implementation of the Rycroft recommendations to tackle foreign influence in our politics; movements towards automatic voter registration; and dealing with crypto to some extent, although not enough. Those are all positive steps forward. I also warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16, which is a long-standing Green party policy.
But—there is a big but, I am afraid, Minister—the Bill could and really should do far, far more to clean up our politics. There are three big things that we need to do: get rid of the influence of dirty and big money in our politics; eliminate the poison of disinformation in our politics; and fix the fundamental structures of our politics that disenfranchise so many people. It is therefore frankly ridiculous that in a Bill about elections called the Representation of the People Bill we are not even allowed to discuss new clause 31 on a national commission on electoral reform. This is fundamentally important to our politics. The fundamental principle of democracy is that everybody’s vote must count equally.
The Government, of course, do not need to legislate on a national commission on electoral reform. They could kickstart one anyway. I really hope that the Minister will take that back to the Prime Minister—who, after all, is supposedly a supporter of electoral reform—and strongly encourage him to put his action where his mouth is on this issue and demonstrate that, if he is serious about problem-solving, he needs to work to solve the problems in our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Will the hon. Member please remember to keep her speech within the scope of what is currently before us?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Member please to take my comments as they were made, and stick to the scope of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I will move on to my amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations. Donations from companies are banned in France and Canada, among many other countries. According to research conducted by CenTax, about a quarter of donor companies are so opaque that it is not possible to identify who controls them, and almost £1 in every £10 given by companies comes, indirectly, from people who could not make donations themselves. This is a loophole in our politics. The Bill already accepts that a company has no independent right to donate, as it depends on the individuals who own it being on the electoral register, so it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. If the House is not willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the Bill by strengthening clause 60.
I have also tabled new clause 30, which calls for
“a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis”.
The new clause would deal with another huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics; that is why there are spending limits during the short campaign; but we know that politics does not happen just in that short period before an election. Politics happens all the year round, especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. Long gone are the days when elections were fought only in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens throughout the year, not just on doorsteps but also online, and it is therefore imperative to place limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics from being skewed out of all proportion by big money. That is why I support new clause 70, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which would lower limits for campaign spending altogether.
In her new clause 120, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) makes a clear case for a cap on all donations. Big money has been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I would prefer the cap to be much lower, perhaps at £50,000 a year, and that view is supported by the majority of the British people, but any move in that direction would be an improvement.
Moreover, some donations simply should not be allowed. I welcome new clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon): there is no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics.
I also welcome the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), particularly new clause 43, which calls for
“a repository of digital political advertising”.
This is absolutely crucial: we have to guard against the use of AI to fuel disinformation. We have to take big money out of politics, take the poison of disinformation out of politics, and fix our political system once and for all.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, I am delighted to welcome the Bill as a significant culture shift for our democracy and a generational step towards fairer politics. I also welcome the Minister to her place, as she is a trusted friend and ally on fair elections. The APPG’s loss is certainly the Government’s gain.
It is fitting that the Representation of the People Bill is the first piece of legislation to come to the House under the Government’s new leadership. The Prime Minister’s long-standing commitment to free and fair elections, support for young people and commitment to cleaning up our politics is well known, and I look forward to this being the first of many steps that he will take to make our politics fit for the future and reflective of the United Kingdom in which we live today.
The Labour party is the party of change: system change, culture change, democratic change. I am proud to be part of a party that has always fought to strengthen our democracy. We must now do that for a new generation, by facing up to the triple threat that disinformation, dark money and a failing electoral system pose to our politics. Westminster is unfortunately becoming dangerously outdated. A five-party electorate can no longer be represented by a two-party system. “Business as usual” and low voter turnout are changing everything.
I am sad that my new clause 31 has been ruled out of scope today.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) that it does not require legislation for the Government to set up a commission to look at electoral systems?
Alex Sobel
I do not want to anger Madam Deputy Speaker, with whom I have served not just here but in other democratic forums, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Members who signed new clause 31 shows the amount of support there is for this in the House; it reflects how many Members support change. I understand that this issue is not in scope of the Bill, but I trust our Prime Minister, who has long been supportive on this issue.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I would like to speak to new clause 19, in my name, which concerns overseas voters. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements. It has more than 50 signatures from Members from across the House, including many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but also Conservatives, Greens and Independents, demonstrating a clear call for change. It also briefly had a Labour Member supporting it, before the Government Whips presumably intervened. We are demanding change on behalf of the 3.5 million overseas voters, including members of our armed forces stationed abroad. Postal ballots all too often arrive too late for them to be returned to the UK in time. The postal ballot return rate was just 48% in the last general election. Proxies, which are a potential solution, are problematic to arrange if people no longer have contacts where they previously resided.
The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand’s voters can download and return ballot papers online. Of course, any change to our voting arrangements would need to be secure, and to be adapted to the UK context, but if other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the Government have so far refused to act.
In a recent meeting with the former Minister for Democracy, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told that it is not possible to make the printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. What is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British state that means we are incapable of enfranchising our overseas voters? Under a Bill that is supposed to ensure the representation of the people, the Government have made only negligible and limited changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad.
The Minister’s response, if there is one, will refer to minor changes made to the timeline for registering for postal voting and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election, and they still suffered from delayed ballots, so we already know that the changes proposed will not be effective. One voter got in touch with Liberal Democrats in Europe to share her story. Angela, a voter in Oldham living in France, was registered to vote before the election, but she received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience in France, what hope is there for those in Australia?
Under the new leadership, can the previous Prime Minister’s incrementalism be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we have heard, there is interest in this Bill from Members from across the House, and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope that my new clause, or something similar, will be pursued in the Lords, and will, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation expressed by the Prime Minister, get a fair hearing.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my new clause 22, to stop oil and gas companies donating to political parties. The context is the extreme heat; there were tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe alone this summer, as well as dangerous wildfires and the droughts. All these things give us a terrifying glimpse of what climate breakdown means, and they underline just how dangerous it is to deny climate breakdown or delay the action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices, whether people can live and work safely, and the functioning of key public services, as well as our economic and national security. We must do all we can to tackle climate change and protect people from its increasingly severe impacts.
However, if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of climate change, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. That will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics. That is where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, but have done so knowing the consequences. They did their best to cover up the science, and used their vast wealth and power to distract, and to delay action, so that they could keep raking in obscene levels of profits—profits that have soared even higher in recent years, while people have been hit with horrendously high bills.
The principle of my new clause is clear: those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, spread misinformation and delay the action needed. It would put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections. Of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my new clause can be part of the action needed to break the link between fossil fuel wealth and the influence it seeks to exert on our politics.
For example, research by the environmental investigations group DeSmog and The Guardian found that when the previous Conservative Government were considering new North sea fossil fuel licences, the Conservative party received more than £400,000 in one year alone in donations from individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries. That was part of what DeSmog estimated was the over £2 million donated to the Conservative party by fossil fuel interests between the 2019 and 2024 general elections. DeSmog research has also highlighted what it describes as Reform links to oil and gas interests. Beyond party donations, there is a complex web of fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, donors, so-called think-tanks and other organisations seeking to shape our politics, and no doubt they were delighted with the Conservative party’s shift against climate action in recent years. Those interests, as we have seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid there ever being that scale of influence here.
For decades, across the globe, oil and gas money has sought to buy influence to help delay the action that we desperately need. My new clause 22 is one step towards ending that, and I thank the cross-party group of MPs who have backed it. I hope that we can continue to work together to stop fossil fuel money polluting our politics. The decisions we take on climate action should be driven by the public interest, not fossil fuel interests.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
In the five minutes you have allotted me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to speak to my clauses 41 to 47 in my name, new clauses 82 and 83, which are now in my name—I put them in my name on behalf of the Education Secretary—and amendment 4, which I put in my name on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White).
I thank the previous Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their constant engagement with me on this matter over the past year and a bit, and I also thank the Minister with responsibility for online safety. I welcome the new Minister to her place—she is a fantastic appointment. I thank the Electoral Commission, Philip Rycroft, members of the Online Safety Network in particular, Demos, Adobe, British broadcasters and colleagues from across this House for working with me to table these crucial amendments.
Our democracy is under attack by foreign actors who want to destabilise our country, and individuals in our country who want to create chaos and division. They use the online space to create and spread disinformation, create deepfakes, and use algorithms to amplify bots pretending to be British citizens. These distort the debate, negate the facts, and take away our right to free choice in a free election.
AI-generated material can be fun—for example, images of cats riding on dolphins—but it can also be destructive. A network of 73 TikTok accounts that pretend to be authentic news organisations suddenly sprang up in March 2025; they have nearly one million followers and have published thousands of deepfakes of Government Ministers supposedly announcing controversial policies. They use real BBC footage. In the first week of December 2025 alone, they had nearly one million viewers. That translates to the doorstep. I spoke to a voter in December 2025 who was convinced that the then Prime Minister was imposing a Christmas tax because she saw a video of him announcing it. Those accounts have made us less sure of who and what we can trust. When that happens, people still vote and make a choice, but the ground beneath their judgment shifts.
New clause 47 would ensure that all material that is AI-generated is clearly labelled. It does not stop any party or candidate from creating crowds at their speeches or wearing a superhero outfit to leap over the Elizabeth Tower, but it would bring transparency to the public.
As has often been said, democracy does not require us to agree, but it does require us to live in the same reality, so new clause 82 would create a liability for false statements, and new clause 41 would ensure that the law offline is applied online—mainly sections 106 and 114A from the Representation of the People Act 1983. These need to be made priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. I thank the Minister for online safety for his engagement; it allows us to work together to ensure that this happens and that Ofcom understands the importance of protecting democracy.
The algorithms are powerful because they do not look dramatic. They look ordinary; it is just content in our feed. No single message changes our mind; scale, volume, emotion and the cumulative effect do. Online social media bosses can use their control of algorithms to promote their political views without reporting to the public. That is why I tabled new clause 42.
I will skip new clause 44, on the Electoral Commission. I want to raise new clause 43, which would require a repository for political advertising, so that any voter can see what a party is advertising in different parts of the country and on different platforms. It would also ensure that all political advertising and the money spent on it can be audited and properly declared.
Everyone in this House knows that this harmful activity is not limited to election periods, but is happening all the time, spreading disinformation or nudifying and humiliating female candidates and politicians. New clauses 46 and 83, which look to introduce the broadcast code to online platforms, would deal with this matter.
Finally, we need an emergency election protocol that is appropriate, transparent and holds public confidence. That is what new clause 45 is about.
None of my amendments has been selected for decision, so they will be relaid in the Lords. I thank the Minister for Online Safety, No. 10 and the Secretary of State for their engagement. Working together, I am sure that we can find a way to protect our democracy.
Liam Byrne
Let me start with a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is not in her place, who said quite rightly that an awful lot has changed since the Bill was first introduced to this House. Indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of the summer. In fact, reporting in The Times, The Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Byline Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform party, but no doubt we will find there is an innocent explanation for all of it.
No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr George Cottrell passed $2 million through US-based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, who then went on to make big donations to Reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr Cottrell was in fact on the electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that his mother, Fiona Cottrell, declared and did not disguise the fact that the money had ultimately come from her son. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why loans to Reform through Britain Means Business were reclassified as donations, even though the party treasurer was not told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who—surprise, surprise—is not in his place, did not declare a £5 million donation before he was elected to this place and went off to lobby the Governor of the Bank of England on behalf of his cryptocurrency allies. No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who has given Reform half of its fortune—more than £25 million—made his fortune in the crypto industry.
No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of that. I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it—and no doubt it will stink to high heaven to the British public.
I very much hope that all of that has been above the law, but that is not the test for political finance regulation in this country. It is not enough to be above the law; conduct must be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. That is why the measures in this Bill are needed, and that is why it will be madness if we do not use this Bill to once and for all eliminate not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics.
I welcome the moves that the Minister has made and the commitment she has made at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to continue to listen to the debate and ensure that the rules under the Bill are as tight as possible. However, the revelations in the newspapers over the summer underline why we must be as hard and as tough as possible. The truth is that right now, the amendments that the Government have tabled to the Bill are full of holes. Under those rules, it would still be possible to move money through digital tokens; it would still be possible to move money through memecoins like the $BRITAIN token; and it would still be possible to aggregate it, convert it into conventional currency and then donate it, for example, to Restore Britain.
We know that this is not some speculative feature of the system. We know that donations that have gone to Reform have been routed through cryptocurrency exchanges like Radom. Now, I have nothing against Radom; it is clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why it has moved its domicile from Poland to the Cook Islands—that beacon of transparency. With risks like that multiplying, why on earth would we leave loopholes open?
The effect of new clause 34 would be to ban off-ramping, ban new forms of digital currency transactions and ban memecoins, which are exactly the kind of measures that Ministers now need to bring forward. If we want to take the crypto system out of political finance, this is what we need to do.
The final point I want to make is about a larger hole in the Bill, which I hope we will square up to over the course of this debate. There are now Members of this House who are making more out of ad share revenue than they are from their salary. If Elon Musk decided to write a cheque to a political party, under the terms of this Bill it would be outlawed. If he decided to retweet something and generate tens of thousands of pounds in ad share revenue, it would be allowed.
We have got to recognise that over the last five years £200 million has been assembled to build a media political complex on behalf of a party that thinks there is a problem with foreigners but not with foreign money. Frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, argument and system from our country.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government.
We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more.
I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome.
I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence.
We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win.
This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods.
I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests.
I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately.
As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the House for some time to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a privilege to speak in the debate, because it is the ultimate manifestation of involvement in our democratic process. The policy paper that goes with the Bill says:
“The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity”.
What that speaks to is equal citizenship: that every citizen, no matter from where, who is on the electoral register in the United Kingdom should be able to have the same right to elect those who make their laws, whether that is for a council, a devolved institution—if they have one—or the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Those who make our laws, whoever they are, should be subject to the right of every citizen to elect them.
What I bring to the debate is the situation in Northern Ireland. That is how it used to be—until 2021, my constituents had the equal right to elect, whether at council, Stormont or Westminster, those who were making their laws—but under what we now call the Windsor framework, in Northern Ireland we are denied the right to elect those who make laws in 300 areas of law. Those laws are not made in this place and they are not made in Stormont. They are made in a foreign Parliament, elected by no one from the United Kingdom.
That takes me back to that founding, underlying principle: the right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity. New clause 122 and amendment 152 bring that matter to the House’s attention by suggesting that unless and until there is an equality impact assessment in respect of the whole United Kingdom’s participation in all aspects of democracy, the Bill should not have effect.
Let me put it to the House like this. The Bill proposes that a 16-year-old in Cardiff, London or Edinburgh who has paid no tax and who has never served their country has full franchise on all aspects of law—they can elect everyone who makes rules governing their lives—but a 67-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all his life and who has served his country, or any other citizen, is denied that right to elect those who make his or her laws in over 300 areas of law. That is the inequity that I respectfully suggest the House needs to face up to.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Regretfully, I think that the hon. and learned Member is confused about the constitutional process. That 67-year-old constituent of his votes for a representative to come to this place, and this place takes decisions on their behalf equally, on any part of the United Kingdom. This institution decided that it was in the best interests, and continues to be in the best interests, of this country and of Northern Ireland to maintain the Windsor framework in lieu of any better alternative on the table. I find using that issue to try to withhold the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to have directly elected representation in this place to be spurious at best.
Jim Allister
I think the hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has effectively just said: that it is right for this House to disenfranchise my constituents, to take from them to right to vote for those who make the laws in 300 areas. Those 300 areas are what shape our economy in Northern Ireland: how we manufacture our goods, how we package them, how we sell them. All that has been removed from the reach of any single constituent in Northern Ireland to elect anyone to have any say over that.
That is disenfranchising and that is the fundamental objection, from a democratic point of view, to the Windsor framework. I therefore say to this House that yes, we can argue about whether 16-year-olds should have a vote. What I say is that if 16-year-olds are due to have a vote in Great Britain, 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland should have an equal reach on their franchise. It should enable them to elect those who make the laws, and not be subcontracted out to those we do not elect. That is why those two new clauses are there.
That is a probing, fundamental issue that touches upon our commitment to equal citizenship and to the fundamentals of our democracy, which is everyone’s right to participate on an equal footing in our democracy, electing those who make our laws. It is incontestable—it is wrong—to say to my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland, “It is good for us in Great Britain to have those rights, but it is not good for you.” That is fundamentally wrong.
I make a final point on a different subject. I tried to intervene on the Minister but she would not take the intervention. On the £100,000 cap, will she confirm, in winding up, that Sinn Féin, for example, which is a party registered in Northern Ireland, will be exempt from the effect of that cap if an Irish citizen living abroad makes a donation in excess of it? Is that the position? If it is, and it is my reading of the Bill that it is, why has that loophole not been closed? Why should I or anyone else have to compete with a party that is not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us? Perhaps the Minister will address that, because it seems to be a loophole crying out to be closed.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As so many have said in this debate, our democracy must not be for sale, so it is disturbing that the campaign spending arms race is becoming out of control. As has been mentioned, in 2023 the previous cap on campaign spending of £19 million was increased massively to £34 million. None of our constituents was asked whether they wanted that, and the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had not seen evidence to justify the increase.
We all know what can happen when campaign spending spirals out of control. A number of Members have referred to the situation in the US, where opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year. That is with four months to go before the mid-term elections. We have also seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds.
New clause 70 would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That is what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation, minus 15%, per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the Government are keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given the time pressure for ensuring that votes at 16 are delivered. I also acknowledge the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State, which was published last night, urging the Electoral Commission to examine the matter. That letter makes it explicit that
“spending limits on parties and candidates are too high, and ought to be reduced”.
It asks the commission to provide recommendations to the Government by July 2027 at the latest.
I am pleased that the Government have heard the call from Members right across the House from the many different parties represented here who have supported my new clause. I am really grateful to the Members who supported it. As the Government have made that request to the Electoral Commission clear, I will not push for a vote on my new clause, but I really want to see progress. The Electoral Commission now has to work speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House, and the commission needs to act on it now.
In my remaining remarks, I want to urge the Government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy to which so many speakers have referred, many of which are covered by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). As others have said, we must ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence, and on additional measures on third-party campaigning and political funding.
The stakes really could not be higher, as so many have said. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre has recently shown that online platforms and AI-generated content are playing a powerful role in amplifying not just divisive narratives, but extremist narratives and conspiracy theories. This has led to a disturbing increase in the size of the still small, but now much more consequential, minority that accepts political violence. Over one in 10 people in our country now say that they could accept political violence. There has also been an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying that we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. In the centre’s words,
“hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating these fractures to further destabilise Britain”.
The Bill and the Government’s amendments will help, but they do not yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The Government have to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that they successfully urge many other nations to do when under the threat of foreign interference. Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed, so while welcoming the Bill overall, I will continue to push for change so that we can really ensure that we have what is the right of every citizen in our country: free and fair elections.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment.
I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate.
I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same.
As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system.
My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections.
New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system.
We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.
Peter Lamb
May I express my delight at my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) making it on to the Front Bench? She is going to do a fantastic job.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I had 14 years in local government, and I was very involved in electoral administration in my area. So much of what we are talking about today involves the Elections Act. I was appointed to chair the Local Government Association working group that went through it, which was a cross-party group. By the end, we came up with a consensus viewpoint: based on the evidence and expert testimony we received, very little of that Act was thought to make much sense. I will not insult Conservative Members by saying that it was a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, but if they were going make a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, it would have looked exactly like the Elections Act.
The basis on which they argued the case at the time was personation. It is vanishingly rare that people actually turn up and try and pretend to be anyone else at a polling station. I will deal with that in just a second, but I must respond to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), at the start of this debate. We knew that the Opposition would say something to try to explain why widening the franchise or making it easier for people to register to vote was a bad idea, but I was not expecting that. It was a good thing we had free hearing tests in Parliament just before recess, but I did not need one: the dog whistle across the Chamber was so loud that it was apparent to all of us.
When Reform eventually turned up to say something, it was the exact same talking points. Conservative Members will not rebuild their party by aping the Reform party. Parties have had this issue time and again; what they are doing might play well within their own ranks, but it will not rebuild their party with the country. Although I have never voted for the Conservative party, I know that there are many moderate Conservatives who must feel a great deal of shame at what is happening to their party, which is driving towards the right and away from common-sense positions.
Personation is vanishingly rare in our system. The reality is that someone would need to know that a seat was on an absolute knife edge to make it work at all. They could not do it as a single person going around all the polling stations—they would need hundreds of people to go around with them. It could not be rigged in a way that would not leak out; they would run into someone in the process. They would need decades of marked registers, which are available to purchase only for six months after an election. Someone would need so many people and to run such a well organised campaign, and even then, they could just get unlucky in the process. I can confidently say that personation has never changed the result of any national election, and it is very unlikely that it has affected a local seat.
What has caused a real problem—personation is not a real-world problem—is foreign interference in our political system. We know there are people who we may soon be at war with who are trying to intervene directly in our elections. We know that questionable money is a problem. Frankly, Russia was pretty happy to give the Conservatives money at one point. We know that tens of thousands of people have been turned away from polling stations since the introduction of voter ID. We know that millions of people are not registered. One in seven eligible voters is not registered in our system, and individual voter registration helped to make that the case. Disenfranchisement in our system is an absolute travesty, and this Bill gives control back to the British public by re-enfranchising them.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters.
As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors.
Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole.
Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering.
We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.
As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Our democracy is precious but faces significant challenges, and if we want to protect our system, it must change with the times. The turnout for the 2024 general election was far too low, at below 50% in the poorest areas. Property ownership was still dictating representation, with renters voting at a rate of 38%, and owner-occupiers at a rate of 71%. The delta between younger and older voters is still too high. Expanding participation and trust in politics is an issue of equality, but also one of social, economic and generational fairness, and I am proud of the Government’s efforts to address that in the Bill.
No Member who has spoken today is under any illusion about the limited trust in our current political system, and the bandwidth of that system to enable meaningful democratic participation, especially among those who need it most. MPs elected with increasingly fractured minority votes, and a Parliament that is sometimes unrepresentative of the voting intentions of the country, repel the trust, participation and engagement that our elected representatives in government need. It is not a party political point to state that; this is about every person stepping up to participate and seeing their vote reflected in this place. When MPs and Governments are enabled with a low share and turnout of the vote, increasingly fewer people see their ballot as meaning anything in this place. If that is their first experience of voting, they are far less likely to vote again.
I believe that the Government can give us a route that starts from the first principles of enabling a system to become fairer and more representative and that sustains public confidence through an independent national commission. That is not something that the Government will do today, but they ought to do in the future so that the next Parliament does not start from scratch on long overdue reform to our electoral system.
New clause 68, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), to which I have added my signature, requires registration officers to accept postal and proxy vote applications that are received after the deadline when there is proof of timely posting. That is a meaningful effort and step to prevent people from losing their votes after having made reasonable steps to submit it. It is not reasonable for voters to lose their say in an election because of the potential—and quite common—unreliability of the postal system, and the new clause would empower returning officers to count the votes of people who have made an effort in good faith to vote.
Sadly, we see amendments from Opposition parties that would limit postal voting, such as Reform’s new clause 108, which would have created serious issues, especially in Scotland. For example, when the last general election was called, the last Tory Prime Minister called it for the first Thursday of the Scottish school holidays, and under new clause 108 thousands of people would have been made ineligible to vote through no fault of their own.
In the last wheeze of parliamentary effort, amendments have been proposed to stop votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have to thank Conservative Members, because their arguments have only compounded my belief that this is the right step for the Government to take. It is ludicrous that amendment 6 and subsequent amendments link the voting age to the age that people can buy alcohol as a way of getting around the Government’s manifesto commitment in the Bill to extend the franchise. Perhaps Members would have been persuaded to support the amendment if we were to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote if they then went to a licensed restaurant for a sit-down meal accompanied by an adult. Sadly, that seems to have been omitted in the amendment.
If there is a serious concern about where we draw the line on the age of capacity, I make the principled point that allowing 16-year-olds to vote so that they can have their democratic say in how the taxes that they contribute are spent and how the conditions of their labour are regulated is a far more rational place to tie that milestone than whether they would be able to have a pint at 8 o’clock while watching the Scottish premiership. The Government is right on this principle and I am glad that we will be able to achieve this milestone today.
Opposition Members have made a lot of references to vote rigging. I find that ludicrous, principally because when votes for 16 and 17-year-olds were passed in Scotland it was with cross-party support, including from the Scottish Conservatives, and because engagement has been increased among 16 and 17-year-olds ever since. I cast my first vote aged 16 in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I was not grateful for the Government of the day. I went out and enthusiastically voted for the SNP—a ludicrous proposal considering how much time I spend in this place opposing SNP measures. I voted because it was the right thing to do and it was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that we have that cross-party consensus today: even if it is a majority and not the unanimity that we had in 2016, it is going to get this over the line.
Sadly, the Conservative and Reform amendments have been about restricting political participation; comparatively, what we have heard from Government colleagues has been about expanding political participation. I hope the Government will go further and set up a national commission, but I look at this Bill as the first stage of our political reform agenda.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
A political system, even one with regular elections, is not really a democracy if rich individuals and corporations are able to use their wealth to buy access and influence, and shape decisions in a way that ordinary citizens will never enjoy. That is what new clause 25, tabled in my name, seeks to address.
The British people will never be able to trust the fact that we are genuinely representing their interests if those with deep pockets can wield disproportionate political power. Unless we use this Bill to drain the influence of money from our politics, that doubt will continue to rot away at the foundations of our democracy, driving more and more of our constituents to disbelieve that Parliament is here to serve them, and meaningful engagement with politics in our country will continue to sink to ever more dismal depths, until no Government have the mandate to legitimately call themselves representative.
The amendment in my name focuses on a specific aspect of this problem that is particularly pernicious and should be banned in its own right: developers donating to political parties to weight the planning system in their own favour. What gets built and where shapes our daily lives like nothing else, and the decisions made through our planning system are often the most tangible touchpoints with democracy for local communities. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the urgent need to put agency and power back in the hands of the people, but in recent years the near universal experience of those engaging with the planning system as ordinary citizens is that their hopes and concerns are dismissed and trampled on by decision making that overwhelmingly favours the interests of speculative developers.
This is not an accident. Developers are among the biggest donors to political parties, and the successive waves of planning deregulation that have served to silence and curtail community participation in planning decisions have allowed these businesses to make vast sums of money throwing up expensive housing that most young families could never hope to afford, while providing as few amenities as they can get away with and destroying our countryside in their pursuit of profit. Our constituents are not daft. They can see the depressing results of the triumph of speculative developers’ interests all around them, and they can also see those same developers and their lobbyists donating huge sums to political parties. The public can read the reports of exclusive fundraising events and access for those able to pay thousands for dinners with Ministers, and they can put two and two together.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
What consideration did the hon. Member give to extending his proposed amendment to trade unions, which—a neutral observer might conclude—gave very large sums of money to the Labour party precisely to influence the Employment Rights Bill that it has now turned into law?
Chris Hinchliff
As we have heard many times in today’s debate, there is a vast difference between trade unions—which are made up of millions of members making small contributions that are collectively donated to the Labour party, which they support—and corporations and rich individuals seeking influence and to further their own vested interests.
To continue where I left off, what confidence can the British people have that the houses that will be built in their area will meet the actual needs of local families and enhance the beauty of their communities, when the developers throwing up sprawling, characterless, rip-off estates across the country are able to buy seats for a quiet chat with Ministers, during which they can lobby them? It is time to ban developers from donating to political parties, to wash away the stain of undue influence, and to deliver a housing and planning system that puts people before profit.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously.
Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country.
Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy.
Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited.
I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important.
However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects.
I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time.
I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.
We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.
The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.
For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.
Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.
To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is clear from this debate that the public have lost trust in politics and the political process, and that is linked to them seeing money have an undue influence on the decisions that politicians make. In 2015, just 1% of private donations came from individuals or companies giving £1 million or more. By 2024, that figure had risen to over a third. We have seen the obscene amounts of money that some MPs have made doing second—or even third and fourth—jobs while they are supposed to be representing their constituents. Equally, we know that businesses that donate to political parties are often in line for Government contracts in return. That has got to stop, because if it does not, more than half of all political donations could soon come from just a handful of individuals, leaving elected politicians increasingly reliant on the patronage of a small elite. We will have wealthy individuals and companies with influence over the direction of our country, despite never having won a single election.
New clause 26, in my name, would begin to address those concerns. It would ban political donors from securing government contracts from the Administrations they paid to elect. Over the past 25 years, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth in government contracts, including during the covid era. In the middle of a national crisis, people needed confidence that decisions were made on merit and in the public interest, not shaped by big donors. The Government are quite rightly starting to claim back some of the covid contracts money, but they would also benefit from distancing themselves from those donors who are only interested in the party as a vehicle for achieving their own ends.
In this debate, we are rightly having a wider conversation about our democracy. There is scrutiny of a Westminster-centric political culture in which communities have often been left behind. Redistributing power on the basis of place is one side of the coin, which must go hand on hand with redistributing power on the basis of wealth. According to a recent Oxfam report, the super-rich exert influence in three main ways: buying political influence by funding parties and candidates; gaining direct access to decision makers and institutions; and shaping public opinion to defend elite power. That is why I am supporting amendments to limit donations from harmful lobbying interests and place stronger caps on what wealthy individuals and private companies can give.
Sam Rushworth
I congratulate the new Minister, and welcome her to her place. It was, I think, a long overdue promotion.
It was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee; it was my first time. I enjoyed the Committee, and I enjoyed the spirit in which we conducted our debates. There were many occasions when I thought that amendments proposed by Opposition parties were sincere and tabled with good intentions, and on more than one occasion the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), had to take me aside and explain to me patiently why the Government’s position was that we could not do something that seemed to me to be a reasonable request. Some complex issues have arisen today as well. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who suggested that there might be a need for a second phase, and to many other contributions from Members who are more expert than me in in various fields. There has been a real sense of concern about the point that we have reached as a democracy.
I wanted to take a couple of minutes to continue my debate with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). She is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to respond to some of her comments about her amendments. Broadly speaking, she seems to be of the opinion that contributing a single vote towards the election of a representative for a four-to-five-year period should be done at exactly the same age at which people choose who should be their marriage partner till death them do part. Let me explain why I do not think that is correct.
We can play a quick game of “higher or lower”. The compulsory school age is five. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. At 12, you can be trained to take part in dangerous performances. You can be kept in police detention if arrested, and you have to sign your own passport application. At 14, you can get a Saturday job. At 15, you can apply to join the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. At 16, you can buy spray aerosols, enter a pub on your own, drink beer or wine with a meal, join the armed forces, change your name by deed poll without parental consent, hold a licence to drive a moped, or gamble by buying a lottery ticket. You can enter a housing contract. You can leave home. You can apply for legal aid, and be assessed on your own means. You can consent to surgical or dental treatment. You can buy premium bonds. You can become a pet owner, you can consent to sexual activity, and you can obtain your national insurance number. You have to be 17, however, to donate blood. At 18 you can be deployed in the armed forces, you can act as the executor of a will, you can buy fireworks and explosives and you can buy firearms, but you have to be 21 to adopt, or to supervise a learner driver.
The point I am making is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is not like flicking a switch; it is a process. The question that we are really debating is: at what point within that process should we trust somebody to take their first step as a democratic citizen by thinking deeply and contributing one of many thousands of votes in an election for who represents them?
Speaking as someone who has raised three children to the age of 16, but also as someone whose career has involved working with children and youth, I believe that 16 is the right age for a number of reasons. In particular, the evidence is strong that getting young people engaged in the democratic process at that age means that it sticks with them throughout the rest of their lives, but there is another reason too. We have heard talk of this being vote rigging. I have to wonder what it is about so many Conservative Members that makes them automatically assume that a 16-year-old will not vote for them. Every party in this place has an equal opportunity to appeal to that young person for their vote, but when they do not have a vote, they can be ignored. We only have to look at the Conservatives’ record—cutting child trust funds, closing down Sure Start centres, cutting primary school budgets, cutting the educational maintenance allowance, cutting school transport, closing careers services, closing youth centres, tripling tuition fees, locking people out of the housing market, and not doing enough on climate change—to see why it is important that we give that generation a say in their future. The right hon. Member for Tatton made that commitment at Wilmslow high school nine years ago, and I am disappointed that she has rowed back on it today.
I strongly endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). We need to look at the issue of deepfakes and protect our democracy, because we are all subject to it.
Anna Dixon
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on becoming a Minister. It is great to see her on the Front Bench.
I really welcome this Bill. We can go back in history and look at the amazing enfranchisement that happened with the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928, when suffrage was extended to women and those with no property. When I have visitors in Parliament, I love showing them the stained-glass windows where, here in this place, we celebrate giving more people the vote. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we can celebrate the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am really proud that this Labour Government are extending the vote and reversing the Conservatives’ measures that disenfranchise people without voter ID, and that we are also going further with automatic voter registration. These are all really great strides forward in enabling more people to vote.
I hugely support a lot of other provisions in the Bill that ensure that our elections are free and fair, but I want to speak specifically to new clause 81, in my name. One part of a free and fair democracy is that it is essential that candidates and elected officials feel safe. My new clause would take forward a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and put an end to the publication of candidates’ home addresses. Today, the default option is for a candidate’s home address to be published. In the increasingly hostile and toxic political climate in which we operate, that is clearly a cause for concern, and I believe it has a chilling effect on our democracy.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) in remembering our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, who were both tragically murdered, and we think of the family of Ann Widdecombe as her horrific murder continues to be investigated. It is a travesty that death threats are now seen as part of the job, and as we know, it is women who are more at risk and more likely to be threatened. It has been reported—so, Madam Deputy Speaker, no worries—that a constituent of mine has recently received a suspended custodial sentence and a lifetime restraining order for a threat to kill me, in which he wrote:
“If I see you in public, I will try my best to kill you. I will work hard to find out where you live, and I will kill you there.”
That is why this amendment is personal to me. As things stand, if a candidate does not want their address to be published, they must actively request it. Thankfully, I had the foresight and I did, but it does put people like me who choose to do that at a disadvantage to other candidates by creating the impression that we do not want to be open and transparent. If this new clause were implemented, the requirements for those who decline to have their address published would become the default for all candidates, giving everyone confidence that, at least in their own home, they and their families would be safe.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her earlier engagement, and I look forward to and hope that the Minister will continue to work with me and the Jo Cox Foundation, as this Bill progresses through to the other place, to ensure we can put in safeguards and protections for candidates, their families and others, such as agents, who support them. I am not going to push my amendment to a vote, but I do hope that we can take measures to protect all those who put themselves forward for elected office at all levels.
I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, for his leadership of the APPG for fair elections, of which I am a member. Others have commented on just how unfair, unrepresentative and unsustainable our electoral system is at the moment, so I do hope—even though we are not considering it—that, in summing up and her wind-up comments, the Minister will give assurances about the steps the Government may take to further protect our democracy and ensure that every vote counts by looking at further measures of electoral reform in the future.
It is vital that we protect our democracy against foreign interests and others who wish to undermine it, and I hope the Minister will consider my amendment and some of those of other hon. Members.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their collective engagement so far on this Bill. As a former anti-corruption specialist for more than a decade and chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have had the pleasure of working with Members from across the House on this Bill in seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy.
To that end, I wholeheartedly endorse a number of amendments: new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on cryptocurrency; amendments 31 to 34 from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on strengthening “know your donor” requirements; new clause 61 from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on closing the political party start-up funding loophole; new clause 70 from my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on reducing campaign spending limits; new clauses 93 to 95 from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on foreign source donations and loans; and new clause 86 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on overseas donations. I hope the Minister will respond substantively to each of those amendments when she winds up.
I want to focus my remarks on new clause 121 and amendment 151, which are in my name on the amendment paper. Both are ultimately about one deliverable that I know the Government want to achieve—namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good.
On new clause 121, I welcome the Government’s move over the weekend to expedite their existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. However, if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future-proof, and that is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests: first, the fairness of elections; secondly, the impact on the political parties; and thirdly, public confidence in electoral integrity.
The new clause would also ensure that future increases could take place only following an independent recommendation from the Electoral Commission. This matters because politics is caught in an increasingly unsustainable fundraising arms race. In 2023, spending limits were increased unilaterally by the Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. As spending limits rise, so does the pressure on parties to raise ever larger sums of money, and when the demand for money grows, it follows that the risk appetite for parties accepting donations, and therefore the window of opportunity for bad actors, also grows. The Rycroft review made exactly that point. Reducing spending limits can help reduce incentives to seek funding from problematic sources and lessen the pressures that fuel concerns about foreign interference in our politics.
Secondly, on amendment 151 in my name, I welcome the Government’s decision in July to move to a profit-based cap on corporate donations—a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue, and something that the APPG I chair had for months been calling for. However, two significant loopholes remain. Amendment 151 would close both loopholes by ensuring that only the profits of the donating company itself are counted, and by calculating donation limits using average profits over five years, rather than accumulated profits. That would provide a more accurate measure of genuine economic activity, and make it far harder for corporate structures to be used to circumvent the intention of the law.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.
I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would
“help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.”
I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections.
Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her place; she will make a fantastic Minister. I want to start by talking about the risks that we are seeing to our democracy: the emergence of AI and the use of crypto to fund parties, alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the two-party system. It is vital that the Bill introduces a much-needed refresh.
One area that the Bill has overlooked is electoral participation, which has been in stark decline for many years. At the last general election, just 59.7% of the electorate voted—the lowest turnout since 2001. The picture is far worse in local elections and by-elections; the Clacton by-election, for instance, saw turnout of a mere 44%, although there may have been other reasons for that. Low turnout is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.
That is why I have tabled new clause 57, which would require the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of the Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, Australia has consistently seen a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimal fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this new clause recognises that, while also protecting the right to spoil one’s ballot paper or return a blank paper.
Coupled with the compulsory voting provision, new clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education. This is important, as research from the Institute For Public Policy Research shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report their school providing regular citizenship lessons. As the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it is not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own—many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, which is why new clause 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults, too.
Alongside new clause 57, I support a number of new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK. I have also supported measures that address the wild west of UK political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being hijacked by those who have only their own interests at heart.
I am extremely proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) with new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. I do not understand why support of such new clauses would even be a question or why we would not support them right now, today.
Finally, although the Bill does not cover constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how they are set. We represent constituents regardless of their right to vote, and thinking about the numbers in terms of the electorate who go on to vote, fewer and fewer people are involved in our political decisions. However, it is not just that: boundaries drawn on the electorate, not on residents, mean that inner-city constituencies like mine, which have the highest levels of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework, representing far more people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter when enacting part 2 of the Bill.
Bills of this nature do not come around often. They offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope that the Government will recognise the benefits that these amendments would bring.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see this Bill back on the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill—it was a pleasure to serve with her in Committee—and I congratulate the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on her appointment.
As was acknowledged on Second Reading, there are significant concerns about the potential for cryptocurrency donations to undermine the integrity of our politics. These concerns were raised by many Government Members in Committee too, and we were reassured that amendments would be brought in at this stage. These concerns are not least because it can be difficult to determine the true source of the funds.
During the Bill’s earlier stages, the Government committed to incorporating the findings of Sir Philip Rycroft’s review and ensuring that the recommendations were reflected in the legislation. I welcome the fact that Ministers took the time to do that, leading to Government new clause 72. This new clause would prohibit UK-registered political parties from accepting donations made in cryptoassets. Any donation made wholly or partially in cryptoassets would automatically be treated as coming from an impermissible donor, and therefore could not be accepted. The Government are proposing that parties take reasonable steps to identify anyone attempting to make a cryptoasset donation and, where such donations are received, to return them or otherwise dispose of them in accordance with the existing rules governing prohibited donations.
New clause 72 also introduces a statutory definition of “cryptoasset” and gives the Secretary of State the power to update the definition through regulations. This is a sensible and proportionate measure. Since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed at the start of the century, the financial landscape has changed considerably, most notably through the growth of cryptocurrencies. This has created new challenges for regulators, law enforcement agencies and those responsible for maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. After listening to many colleagues today, I think that some concerns remain unaddressed, so I hope that the Minister will address those that have been raised and close all the loopholes that have been mentioned.
Government new clause 116 would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on political donations and certain regulated transactions from overseas contributors. The cap would apply to individuals registered as overseas electors and certain individuals who are on the UK electoral register but have spent time living outside the United Kingdom. It is, of course, welcome that British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years have since 2022 been entitled to vote in UK elections once again. However, as Philip Rycroft noted in his review, while British citizens living overseas can legitimately participate in UK democracy and make political donations, donations from overseas electors present additional risks that need to be managed.
We have heard numerous concerns in this debate, and I hope that Ministers will look again into those concerns and address the loopholes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks.
However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from.
I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.
I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should
“more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.”
If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge.
It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank those hon. Members whose excellent amendments I have put my name to. There are dozens of them, so I could not list them all, but they included amendments on electoral reform, capping political donations, crypto, and preventing domestic abusers from standing for election. Today, I speak in support of my new clauses 32 and 33, which would require candidates in parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales to obtain an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check.
Public trust in politics is at a historic low. The National Centre for Social Research found that 79% of people surveyed believed that Britain’s system of Government needed significant improvement. That long-running survey, conducted since 1986, shows a marked decline in confidence in our political institutions over recent decades. The reasons for that decline are complex, but repeated cases of misconduct by elected representatives have undoubtedly played a part.
In recent years, Parliament has seen a series of high-profile cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In the last Parliament, several Members were suspended, sanctioned or forced to leave office following serious findings or criminal convictions. In 2023, it was reported that more than 50 MPs had been referred to Parliament’s independent complaints and grievance scheme for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. The overwhelming majority of MPs and councillors serve with integrity and dedication, but the actions of a small minority damage the reputation of all of us in public life.
The same principle applies in local government. Councillors often hold positions of public trust and responsibility, including things connected to safeguarding and child protection, yet there have been numerous examples of councillors convicted of serious offences or resigning following allegations of misconduct. We rightly require taxi drivers, teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals and many others to undergo DBS checks before they can work in positions involving public trust and contact with vulnerable people. It is therefore reasonable to ask why those seeking elected office should be exempt from the equivalent requirement.
Of course, a DBS check is not a guarantee of good conduct—no safeguarding measure is foolproof—however, it would establish a minimum standard and set an important precedent. It would send a clear message to those seeking elected office that they should meet the same basic expectations that we apply to everyday workers. As elected representatives, we regularly interact with constituents, volunteers, parliamentary and political staff, and members of the public. We visit schools, youth groups, hospitals, care settings, community organisations and in many cases we come into contact with children, young people and vulnerable adults. In any other role involving that level of contact, a DBS check would be regarded as the basic and proportionate requirement. Since becoming an MP, I have been asked when visiting schools whether I have been DBS checked, and people have been surprised to learn that we are not required that have it.
My new clauses are not about restricting democracy; they are about strengthening confidence in it. They are about safeguarding the public, improving standards in public life and helping to rebuild trust in our public and democratic institutions. My new clauses would require candidates to hold a DBS check prior to submitting their application to the returning officer, therefore placing no financial burden on Government or councils. I urge the Government to consider the proposals seriously. Will the Minister set out what further steps the Government intend to take to strengthen safeguarding, improve standards in public life and restore public trust and confidence in elected representatives?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for all her work on the Bill. I also welcome the Minister to her place.
I will speak briefly to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I thank the many Members from across the House who have supported it and the Royal National Institute of Blind People for its assistance and support in drafting it. The Bill takes a significant step towards strengthening and protecting our democracy and extending the franchise. However, we must recognise that one group of voters remain disenfranchised and unable to vote independently and in secret because they cannot see the ballot form in front of them.
I first worked on the issue of accessible voting at the 1997 general election, when I had the privilege of working for Scope on the “Polls Apart” campaign. “Polls Apart” shone a light on the physical barriers that disabled people face when exercising their right to vote. It went on to secure changes in the law to remove many of those barriers. Nearly three decades on, however, blind and partially sighted people still cannot reliably vote independently and in secret.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Bill and on trying to level the playing field to ensure that every Member and every person has the ability to vote independently and in secret. She rightly highlights that one group, which includes me, are unable to vote independently and in secret because we are unable to see our ballot paper clearly. Does she agree that it is time for everyone to work together to ensure that we level the playing field so that every person has the ability and the right to exercise their vote independently and in secret?
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.
One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.
John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.
Anna Dixon
I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?
Ms Minns
I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.
This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their constructive and informed contributions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to face a telling-off from you, so given the timings, I will not reference each amendment but instead talk broadly about the main themes of the debate. I assure Members, who have asked a number of detailed and serious questions, that I have taken note of many of the questions; I commit to writing to them individually if I do not cover those areas in my closing speech.
Florence Eshalomi
All of us need to work to protect the integrity of all elections, not just the next general election. Every election should matter. Local elections, regional elections, mayoral elections—every election should have the same weight when it comes to ensuring that it is free from any foreign interference. That is how we strengthen our democracy.
A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments on candidate safety, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) spoke about her lived experience. Threats to candidates, campaigners and elected officials are totally unacceptable. Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can already be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. The Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences, and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
New clauses 58 and 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 for the purpose of the disqualification order, and require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders relating to abuse or harassment when the relevant behaviour was aggravated by hostility towards someone’s status as a candidate, campaigner or office holder. This Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously and recognise the devastating impact it can have on victims. I know the extremely difficult personal circumstances faced by my hon. Friend and thank her for her bravery and continued efforts to raise this important issue. I can give the commitment that we will review these laws and ensure that the necessary protections are in place, as my hon. Friend describes. With regard to domestic abuse convictions, the list of offences in schedule 9 can be updated via secondary legislation.
On candidate requirements, the Government recognise that trust in our elected representatives is vital to the effective functioning of our democracy. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill includes a number of measures to strengthen the nomination process for candidates.
New clause 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), aims to require candidates who have been convicted and sentenced under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime. This is a complex and sensitive matter, and we must ensure that any proposals that might restrict or deter individuals from taking part in our democratic system are carefully considered.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making fantastic progress on protecting our democracy. On criminal convictions, as she will know, I have taken over amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). It is about listing on registers of interests, once a candidate is elected as an MP or councillor, that they have undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check. That would provide schools, care homes and women’s shelters with the clarity that they can feel safe with that person. Will the Minister consider that, as part of ensuring transparency, so that people can understand who it is, and is not, appropriate to invite to particular venues?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is right that we look at the range of different requirements placed on candidates. My understanding is that some people, such as local councillors, are required to have DBS checks, but again, as many hon. Members have noted, there is no such requirement for us as parliamentarians; that is something that we need to test and look at further. I can continue to work with her and other interested Members on looking at this area.
New clause 48 concerns accessibility for voters and seeks to mandate the provision of audio and tactile devices in polling stations. The Government are firmly committed to supporting democratic participation for all eligible voters. I recognise the important work that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have undertaken to champion accessibility and ensure that disabled people can participate fully in our democracy.
Alex Sobel
I know the Minister has long supported changing the system of election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has also committed to it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are actively considering changing the system from first past the post?
Florence Eshalomi
I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords.
A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps.
On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.
Lisa Smart
It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson. I cannot stand here and unilaterally write the terms of reference for the taskforce, but I would be happy to discuss with her at a later stage what the taskforce would entail. She also spoke about voter registration provisions. We will move towards more automated voter registration, but that takes time. We hope to use existing powers or non-legislative approaches as part of that.
The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes. Although there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining AI-generated content, we will continue to explore solutions and are taking the first steps forward. Several amendments relate to social media and elections. The Government agree that we must protect the integrity of our elections from malign influence, and greater transparency is part of that. We believe that the way to achieve that is through a new targeted transparency regime. That is why we are strengthening the imprint framework through the Bill. We have taken steps to tackle a range of threats from foreign states that are actively seeking to disrupt our political system. We are alive to the issues that Members have raised in this debate through their amendments, such as those on deepfakes and online harassment, and the Government are continuing to assess the best way to mitigate those concerns.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I chair the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we conducted an inquiry on votes at 16. We were speaking directly to young people, and they are delighted that the Bill will empower them with the vote. However, they are equally concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and having the tools that they need to engage in the democratic process. Does the Minister agree that that is a key issue, and that if we are to empower young people with the vote, we must also empower them with the tools that they need to use that vote in an informed and engaged way?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chaired formerly, will continue to consider such issues, and many hon. Members will continue to feed into our proposals as we develop them.
In conclusion, I wish briefly to reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Many Members will recall the toll that the last general election took on those who stood for election. The Electoral Commission’s research told us that more than half of candidates faced harassment or intimidation in the course of campaigning.
The Speaker’s Conference heard worse: families targeted, tyres slashed and campaigners driven away from the streets where they were trying to represent candidates. Women and candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds bore this disproportionately. I know from conversations I have had with Members from across the House, including with those who sometimes do not want to discuss the issue because doing so can invite further abuse, that this was not confined to the doorsteps—it reached people’s homes and their families. This is not robust political debate—it is organised intimidation and it strikes at the willingness of good people to stand for office, or even not stand.
A democracy that cannot protect those who offer themselves for its service is not in any sense one that is secure. This Bill will not fix that on its own—no legislation could—but it takes this House further than before, extending disqualification for hostility motivated offences to cover election staff as well as candidates, adding a new aggravating factor for such offences, and working with the Electoral Commission on a code of conduct and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates alike. The Bill will sit alongside a wider purpose: trust in our elections is not owed to us as parliamentarians, but earned through the integrity of the system we ask people to trust.
The Bill secures a system against foreign and elicit money, closing routes that hostile actors have sought to exploit through crypto-currency, opaque company structures and unlimited overseas donations. It protects the people who make our elections happen—candidates, campaigners and electoral staff alike. It keeps our democracy open to legitimate voters, including for the first time those aged 16 and 17, a change that I have long campaigned for and I am glad to bring to the House as the Minister now responsible for it. It modernises the machinery of registration and absent voting, so that participating in our democracy is neither harder nor more confusing than it needs to be.
The next stage of the Bill is shaped by extensive engagement, by the Rycroft review’s recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full, and by many Members across the House who have brought expertise and lived experience, in some cases at a personal cost, to this debate. I thank all colleagues involved in getting us to where we are at this stage, and to state again that the Government remain committed to doing whatever is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 72 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 76
Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000
“(1) Part 4A of PPERA 2000 (regulation of loans and related transactions) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 71F (regulated transactions), after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) A reference to a regulated transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a regulated transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(3) In section 71L (offences relating to regulated transactions), omit subsection (12).
(4) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations), in paragraph 1 (operation and construction of Schedule), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) A reference to a controlled transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a controlled transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(5) In that Schedule, in paragraph 8 (offences), omit sub-paragraph (12).”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new Clause would make amendments relating to the circumstances in which a regulated transaction is entered into for the purposes of Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and takes the place of amendments that are currently made by Schedule 8 to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Section 148D(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by the Revenue and Customs) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years |
|---|---|
Section 148E(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by the Welsh Revenue Authority) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years |
Section 148F(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by Revenue Scotland) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years”.” |
Donation | Valuation provision |
|---|---|
(a) A donation within the meaning of this Part of this Act to a registered party | Section 53 of this Act |
(b) A controlled donation within the meaning of Schedule 7 to this Act to a regulated donee | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(c) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 11 to this Act to a recognised third party | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(d) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 15 to this Act to a permitted participant in a Part 7 referendum | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(e) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to which that Act applies | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(f) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 to an accredited campaigner | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(g) A relevant donation within the meaning of Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) to a permitted participant in a Scottish referendum | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(h) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to the Scottish Parliament (see article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/425)) | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(i) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 6 to the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025/864) to a candidate at an election to Senedd Cymru | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(j) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14 (N.I.)) to a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(k) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 5 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1917) to a candidate at an election of a police and crime commissioner | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
Donation | Relevant refusal provision |
|---|---|
(a) A donation within the meaning of this Part of this Act to a registered party | Section 56(2) of this Act |
(b) A controlled donation within the meaning of Schedule 7 to this Act to a regulated donee | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 8 of that Schedule |
(c) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 11 to this Act to a recognised third party | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(d) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 15 to this Act to a permitted participant in a Part 7 referendum | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(e) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to which that Act applies | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(f) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 to an accredited campaigner | Paragraph 14 or 15 of that Schedule |
(g) A relevant donation within the meaning of Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) to a permitted participant in a Scottish referendum | Paragraph 36 of that Schedule |
(h) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to the Scottish Parliament (see article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/425)) | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, as that paragraph is applied by article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 |
(i) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 6 to the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025/864) to a candidate at an election to Senedd Cymru | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(j) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14 (N.I.)) to a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(k) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 5 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1917) to a candidate at an election of a police and crime commissioner | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
Transaction | Valuation provision |
|---|---|
(a) A regulated transaction within the meaning of Part 4A of this Act | Section 71G |
(b) A controlled transaction within the meaning of Schedule 7A to this Act | Paragraph 3 of that Schedule |
(c) A regulated transaction within the meaning of Part 6 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) | Paragraph 48 of that Schedule |
“Section 55D(8) (making a false declaration about donation by overseas contributor) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”. |
“Section 71HD(5) (failure to give notice of becoming, or ceasing to be, overseas elector) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine On summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland: level 5 |
Section 71HE(8) (making a false declaration about regulated transaction involving overseas contributor) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”. |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers, and introduces new, tougher rules around political donations.
The legislation reflects the commitments made in our strategy for modern and secure elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers much of the Rycroft review on foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics that is both stronger and fairer.
I reassure the House and hon. Members that during the Bill’s passage we have committed to returning to various issues in the other place. I look forward to a strengthened Bill returning.
I will briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who have carried the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who delivered much of the policy that led to the Bill.
I also thank those hon. Members form across the House who have contributed to debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition and those who took part in the Bill Committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). As he said in Committee, the Bill is “groundbreaking” legislation, and I most certainly agree. Finally, I thank my team in the private office, all the officials at the elections directorate in my Department, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who have worked so hard to produce the Bill before us today.
The Bill will leave our politics stronger and fairer, and all those who have contributed to its drafting and passage should take huge pride in having done so. The measures are the next step in the evolution of our democracy, strengthening our institutions and processes to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.
As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.
I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.
As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.
Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It has been a privilege to be part of this process and to listen to the impassioned contributions from Members across the House, from Second Reading through to Committee and Report. The contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and owe a great deal to the hard work of the people who have campaigned tirelessly for improvements to our system and to clean up our politics, and of course, to those who do the work on the ground. Our returning officers and those who deliver democracy, often on shoestring budgets, so that we can sit here, rarely get the praise they deserve. We should be strengthening what they do and how they do it, and we owe them the resources to do what is needed.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—a measure that we have argued for over many years, and which I will be delighted to vote for this evening. We will also support the Bill because, without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The “know your donor” regime is not perfect, but it is a step that we welcome, and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress.
The Bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand and harder for the wrong money to stay in our politics. Those are good things and will have a long-lasting effect. I look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work that they are doing on donation and spending limits, which they outlined earlier. The true test of whether the people really are represented fairly will be whether votes count when they are cast. That argument has not been resolved yet, and I do not think it is an argument that will fade away any time soon. For tonight, though, I am content that this is a better Bill than the one that arrived, and that is down to the scrutiny and grit that this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.
Katie Lam
It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.
Business without Debate
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker
With leave of the House I will group motions 3 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriage, etc.
That the draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.
Energy
That the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.
International Development
That the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) (Amendment) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.
Defence
That the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.—(Harpreet Uppal.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many, the great residents of Stoke-on-Trent Central enjoy accessing our airports to go on holiday, so they are rightly concerned about the lack of a train link between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport that is similar to the system that runs to Birmingham airport. Having to change at Piccadilly adds delays and means that we have trouble getting businesses down. All the evidence suggests that such a link would be of economic benefit to our city. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central,
Declares that residents and businesses are concerned about the poor connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and its nearest airport, Manchester airport, further declares that, at present, local people travelling for work or holidays must take a train to Manchester Piccadilly that goes right past the airport (in south Manchester) before changing at Manchester Piccadilly; further declares that this creates risks of delays, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage and for older or disabled people; and further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would help to generate inward investment for the area, support jobs for local people, and help to put Stoke-on-Trent firmly on the transport map.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003230]
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Further to a similar online petition of more than 4,200 signatures, I present this petition on local government reorganisation in Devon. The plans published in July by the Government appear to have been configured entirely to benefit the urban areas of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, and call into question service delivery, local democracy, and local identity across the county’s rural communities. Arguably there is no conceivable way that it can result in growth in every postcode. As a result I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement yesterday to revisit the current plan, and my hope is that the strength of feeling shown by residents in South West Devon, south Devon, and across the county, will result in a meeting with Ministers to discuss a way forward that benefits the whole county, with local services that we can all be proud of, and that do not create a two-tier Devon of urban versus rural.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area,
Declares that the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the county of Devon have not adequately taken account of local viewpoints; further declares that it will lead to a democratic deficit for rural areas, introduces a rural council area that is too large to effectively administer, will lead to a disparity between total council tax bills for rural compared to urban areas as parish precepts will continue to be charged for rural areas, will result in the prioritisation of urban needs over those of rural areas, and will represent a loss of identity for long-established rural communities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon its plans for local government reorganisation in the county of Devon.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003232]
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Happy birthday to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of local people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who, like me, want a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport—a connection that will benefit constituents not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but across Staffordshire, as can be seen by my colleagues who are here this evening.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that there is growing concern amongst residents and businesses about the poor connectivity between North Staffordshire and Manchester airport; notes that local people travelling to Manchester airport by rail must currently travel via Manchester Piccadilly on a train that passes the airport; further notes that the current reliance on a connection through Manchester Piccadilly risks a delayed journey, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage to carry, for older people, and for those who have mobility issues; further declares that too many people are forced to rely on a taxi which is often more expensive and is at the mercy of the M6, the A500 and the A34; further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would be good for inward investment to this area, including for jobs for local people; further declares that a direct train connection will also help to ensure that Keele University and all the excellent businesses based at Keele Business Park are able to remain competitive with their rivals in other parts of our United Kingdom; and further notes the decision of August 2026 to confirm the roll-out of such a direct connection.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government, the relevant train companies and the relevant local authorities to successfully and speedily deliver the direct train line connection for passengers who live learn and work in North Staffordshire between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003233]
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition on food security following the extreme summer heat that has left tonnes of safe, nutritious but cosmetically imperfect produce rejected at the farm gate, deepening import reliance and showing the urgent need for a good food Bill.
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that this summer's extreme heat has left cosmetically imperfect but safe, nutritious fruit and vegetables rejected at the farm gate, with one surplus food redistributor alone taking in 6,000 rejected cauliflower heads in a single week; further declares that rigid retailer cosmetic specifications are forcing farmers to destroy edible produce while shortfalls are filled by imports; further notes that new analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit warns 2026 could be the worst UK harvest on record, with dairy farmers already losing 18.5 million litres in milk yields and growers facing water abstraction cessations; and further declares that food security is national security, and that this waste deepens the UK's reliance on imports at the exact moment self-sufficiency matters most.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables, by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices, introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003234]
National Highways: M49 Severnside Junction
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Just off the M49 in Severnside is a junction that has never carried a single vehicle. It was built six years ago and cost the taxpayer £40 million, but in those six years not a car, van or lorry has used it. The national press has dubbed it the “ghost junction”. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter before the House today, because the future of the M49 Severnside junction is one of real consequence for my constituents in Thornbury and Yate. I am here because I want the junction to be fixed and so do my constituents. I hope the Minister listens and acts: doing something about this kind of issue is exactly how he can show people he is here to serve them and not himself. We are all quite fed up with ineptitude.
First, some housekeeping. In a response to my letter, the Department referred to this as the Avonmouth junction. It is not in Avonmouth. The Avonmouth spur lies some three miles down the motorway. This junction sits in Severnside. I raise that because a botched junction whose supposed name is three miles adrift from where it stands tells us something about how far the responsible authorities are from the reality on the ground. I would be grateful if the Minister adopted the correct description in his own dealings, so that there is no confusion in the future. I would not want the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) to think that I am in any way moving the boundaries of our constituencies.
Let me set out the background briefly. National Highways built this junction in 2020, at a cost of £40 million to the taxpayer. It was designed to connect the motorway to the Severnside enterprise area, one of the largest concentrations of industry and logistics in the west of England, and it was forecast to support some 14,000 jobs. Yet in the six years since, not a single vehicle has used it. There is a reason for that. Ever since it was built, the junction has stood unconnected to the local network, because the short stretch of road linking it to the estate had not been built, and no one would agree who was responsible for building it.
In a letter to me, the Minister blamed a private developer for this. Questions could be raised around whether National Highways and the previous council Administration could have secured an enforceable agreement, but I will not rehearse that whole saga tonight. It is at last being resolved. South Gloucestershire council has taken the work on itself, with funding from the Department. Construction is under way. The council expects it to be finished by the end of this year. I want to put on record my recognition of the councillors and council officers who stepped in to deliver what others would not. They have done their part.
However, that issue is not the reason I have sought this debate. We have now learned that the junction itself is defective. National Highways has admitted that it has identified defects at the junction that must be repaired before it can safely open to traffic. A junction built by National Highways, completed six years ago and signed off as finished, cannot safely carry traffic until National Highways repairs it—is the Minister as baffled as I am? National Highways has set out no programme for those repairs and no timetable for opening. The council has been told that there will be no further update until later this autumn, and the Roads Minister echoed that to me personally in response to my recent letter.
To enlighten the Government, the traffic that the junction would have carried has not simply vanished. Instead, it runs through my constituency’s small country lanes—heavy goods vehicles, day and night, on roads that were never built to carry them. Residents in villages and isolated homes live with the noise and the lights of lorries passing at all hours. How can residents feel safe crossing their own roads? A parent with a pushchair should not have to weigh up whether it is safe to step out of their front door. Cyclists and runners have to tread carefully through what should be peaceful country lanes. When National Highways told me about the problem, it saw businesses as stakeholders, but not local residents. My constituents vehemently disagree.
It is not just the smallest roads that are affected. Councillors and constituents alike tell me that the A403, the B4461 and others are facing misuse by HGVs. Horse riders, agricultural vehicles and families are finding it difficult to access those roads—if the Minister is looking for a way to apologise to my constituents for this debacle once it is fixed, he could do worse than providing permanent safety improvements on roads such as the A403. One constituent has told me that, over just 15 minutes, he recorded multiple HGVs seemingly over 7.5 tonnes using the B4461 despite environmental weight restrictions. This is a regular issue in Hallen, too. My constituents tell me that it is difficult to report those vehicles, because the short time they get to see them is not enough to grab the registration and other necessary details. They feel that the companies using the roads pay lip service, but never take concrete action. I am totally against those vehicles breaching the weight limit in this way, but I understand the motivation: they have no direct access to the motorway.
The businesses of Severnside continue to wait. This is a major logistics centre, and its operators depend on efficient access to the motorway and the docks. Every year the junction stays shut is a year of longer routes and higher costs. The economic case for this junction was made years ago and accepted by the then Government, but the delivery has lagged behind. I need not explain to the Minister why getting this junction functional is so important to the economic aims of this Government.
Further costs are falling on the council and local people. The council spent scarce funds on repairing the very roads that this delay will now be damaging. HGVs continue to blitz through country lanes, and newly repaired roads will only be subject to the same continuous pressure for longer. The council expected the roads to be used by local people, which is why they repaired them now. From the perspective of both local people and the public purse, it is utterly farcical just how much money and effort is being wasted due to the delays in opening the junction. The council will now have to find the money to mend those roads once again after traffic finally arrives on the junction—I need not explain why the funds are not there. This is public money spent once, and needed again, to repair damage caused by a failure that was not of the local authority’s making. This Government’s devolution agenda will be undermined if situations like this are not put right for local communities.
National Highways is not a private developer the Minister can gesture towards; it is an organisation answerable to the Minister’s Department. When it builds a junction that does not work and then declines to say when it will put that right, I must ask the Minister to justify its approach. My constituents and I find that approach unacceptable. I understand that there may be legal issues and investigations that the Minister cannot reveal, but the lack of communication from the Department has been shocking.
I want to raise one further concern, which I raise as a question, not as a claim. I understand that this junction used a novel construction technique, and that one other location where that technique has been used has been identified as defective. The House deserves to know whether these are isolated faults, or two instances of something more systemic in how these structures were built and signed off. If it is the latter, that is a far graver matter than one junction in Severnside, and the Minister would be wise to get ahead of it. He may recall that National Highways already has something of a record in my area, because we have a large amount of motorway infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, and we recently endured a three-year road closure when a bridge over the M4 had to be closed for safety reasons and completely replaced. We already have an ageing infrastructure; if we are adding new problems, that is worrying.
I will close with a few questions, and I ask the Minister to answer each of them directly. First, will he require National Highways to publish a clear timetable for the repairs, rather than the open-ended promise of an update at some point this autumn? Secondly, will he tell the House what the defects actually are and when they were first identified, given that the junction was declared complete in 2019? Thirdly, will he commit to a firm date by which this junction will finally open to traffic? Fourthly, will he establish how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures? Fifthly, who is responsible? Will this Government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public and all stakeholders can properly scrutinise those responsible? Sixthly, will he provide additional funding for the council to repair the roads again, once the junction is finally open?
My constituents have waited six years. They have watched a £40 million junction sit empty above a motorway that they cannot access using the junction, and they have carried the traffic and the disturbance in the meantime. They are not asking for much; they are asking for a date and for someone, at last, to take responsibility. I hope the Minister can give both tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
May I echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I recall that in a previous life you gave many happy returns to me across the Dispatch Box on a very special birthday, of which we do not need to remind ourselves.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this debate and on highlighting an issue of real importance to her constituents and the wider Avonmouth and Severnside area. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on junction 1 of the M49. I apologise for the Department wrongly describing the junction in previous correspondence. It is correct to say that we are talking about junction 1 of the M49.
I recognise the strength of local feeling articulated by the hon. Member. Residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction brought into use as soon as possible. The Government share that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear: to improve access between the Avonmouth and Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The Government want local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure.
The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the south-west region. It is home to major industrial, warehousing, distribution, energy and port-related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area’s continued growth and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member has mentioned.
While I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position. It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this scheme was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach distribution park. That is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised.
The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements. The link road connecting the junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire council. National Highways was consulted as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to deliver the link road. Despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitment.
When it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, the Department, National Highways and South Gloucestershire council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire council. Rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the Government have therefore engaged with our partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and to establish a practical, long-term solution that will bring the junction into use. That has included £10 million of Government funding.
Of course, as we heard and the House will appreciate, completing the local road link road is not the only issue that must now be resolved. As part of monitoring and, more recently, detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic. I recognise that that is disappointing for local communities and businesses. A junction visible from the motorway but not yet available for use is, of course, understandably frustrating.
Local representatives, as the hon. Member has done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach the Government are prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly where engineering concerns have been raised. The House would expect no less in any constituency in the country.
However, the hon. Member raises important questions, and I would like to take each in turn. First, she asks whether National Highways will publish a clear timetable for the repairs. I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution, delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment. Engagement is taking place with the contractor, and an appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence, and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible.
Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified. Defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking. Those came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network. At that stage, they were not deemed significant and so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, that ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. The later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood. This is ongoing and can only be confirmed once the engagement with the contractor has concluded. I have now discussed the matter with National Highways, and I have formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigations, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the work.
Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic. As she will probably appreciate from what I have said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works. Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions. Once those are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and establish a delivery programme. It would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed.
However, I recognise it is particularly frustrating that, after a long wait, the junction still sits empty. That is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of it looking at options to open the junction as soon as possible. Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity in the interim. I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on that review.
Claire Young
I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify one point. He said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. Probably more importantly, it would have been helpful for South Gloucestershire council, which is proceeding with the work, to have been aware of the work earlier. Will he take that point back to National Highways?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention, and I absolutely will take that point. All stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when there are, as I say, connected works to do with that particular junction.
The hon. Member asked how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other National Highways structures. I have been assured that National Highways is undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learnt, and, once it has concluded, will embed those lessons to ensure that the same thing does not happen on other structures. I should emphasise that such occurrences are not frequent, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but of course we need to look into it to be assured of that, so I have asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons-learnt process as part of their regular ongoing engagement.
The hon. Member’s fifth question was: who is responsible? Will the Government do what is right, and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible? Questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and the funding of remedial works, and National Highways is continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. As I have said, I will not prejudge the outcome of these discussions from the Dispatch Box, but I want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires. I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I have said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, to identify lessons and to prevent recurrence, and I have asked it to share the lessons learnt following the conclusion of the investigation.
Finally, there was the question of funding. As I have explained, the Government have already provided about £10 million to support the development of the link road, recognising its importance. I am sure the hon. Member will understand that there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit ourselves to prioritising the technical issues that have been discussed this evening.
The Government’s approach is clear. National Highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route, protect taxpayers’ interests, and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, which we have touched on this evening, is also important. Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction has not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue, and how progress will be communicated.
As I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, there will of course be limits to what I can say publicly while commercial discussions are ongoing, but commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. I have asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share. If the hon. Member does not feel that she is being kept up to date, I ask her to let me know.
There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council-led connection, and a National Highways asset; they see one road, one promise, and one delayed outcome. We as a Government, and delivery bodies, must be clear about the need to manage infrastructure coherently, with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications. The Department will therefore continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing the local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset, and the Department’s role is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use, while of course ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance.
Let me return to the central point. Everyone involved in this matter wants the same outcome. Local communities want the junction open, businesses want better access to the strategic road network, local authorities want the economic and transport benefits to be realised, and, of course, the Government want all those things to happen. We remain committed to seeing the junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy, but we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence, and reflects proper stewardship of public investment.
Let me again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, for the important points that she has raised, and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that the junction is opened safely, and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses that it was designed to serve.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action.
While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action.
This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action.
That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact.
Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are.
The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible.
This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, let me place on record my thanks to him for the assiduous way he has dealt with delegated legislation when I have been in the Chair, and I wish him good luck in his new role. I call the shadow Minister.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I was going to say it is a great pleasure to be on this Committee, but it is an even greater pleasure after that wonderful remark. I am very grateful, and it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister, as usual; I thank her very much indeed for her explanation of the Government’s intentions for the draft regulations before us.
As I think I have stressed at every Delegated Legislation Committee under this Department, it is important that these changes strike the right balance—in this instance, between ensuring that employees are able to exercise their right to industrial action in certain circumstances and in accordance with the law, and the interests of businesses and employers upon whom our future prosperity depends.
To that end, I have a few questions about the measures. At the end of part one of the explanatory memorandum it states that guidance covering these regulations will be updated next month, in October. Does that mean that employers will be left in the dark about the specifics of their new, added responsibilities until the date that these regulations come into effect? More broadly, that seems to be a recurring theme of statutory instruments laid by this Department.
I suggest that the hon. Lady and her colleagues try to put themselves in the position of a business, particularly a small business. Whether or not one agrees with the Government’s regulatory changes, businesses deserve fair and reasonable time to plan before regulations come into effect. That is good for everybody. I am afraid that, consistently, guidance and regulation come at the same time, which gives no time for due planning so that businesses can get ready. Will the Minister commit today to publishing guidance ahead of regulation coming in, so that employers have advance sight, notice and guidance? That would be appreciated by all companies, big and small, in all our constituencies.
Secondly, following the Government consultation on these regulations earlier in the year, some respondents suggested that reducing the perceived risks to participation in industrial action could lead to more frequent and prolonged disputes with trade unions. I appreciate that the Government may not be concerned with trade union-created disputes becoming more frequent, but the public and businesses certainly are. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s response to those specific concerns in the public consultation? They were not addressed in the formal Government response, and it would be good to hear the official response.
Thirdly, the law firm Dentons has made clear that employment tribunals will determine on the facts of each case whether a worker has suffered a detriment. But we know that the Government are already facing an unprecedented and growing backlog in the employment tribunals system. In the most recent statistics, which are from March 2026, there were 64,000 single claim open cases awaiting resolution. That is a 55% increase compared with the same period in 2024-25, and a 42% increase in the last year alone. We know that the Justice Committee felt required to launch an inquiry into the issue, and the Law Society has described the situation as “urgent”, stating:
“It is alarming to see employment tribunal backlogs continuing to spiral”.
What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the impact of the Government’s employment policies in creating this additional backlog? Has an impact assessment been carried out by either her Department or the MOJ to determine how these specific regulations might further exacerbate what is quite a worrying backlog?
Fourthly, during the passage of the Employment Rights Act through both Houses, the Opposition repeatedly tabled amendments that sought to put beyond doubt that protection from detriment for employees who engage in behaviour such as intimidation on picket lines, protest on company premises or at the personal residence of managers, or the harassment of non-striking workers is withheld. The Government chose at that time—many times, actually—to reject those amendments, suggesting that such behaviours would already not entitle protection. For the record, can the Minister state categorically that, if workers engage in those kinds of behaviours, which I think we would all disagree with, these regulations will not leave employers unable to take action against those serious perpetrators?
Finally, paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the deduction of pay by an employer from a worker who takes industrial action. That is allowed under common law and unchanged by the regulations, but the paragraph also explains that
“the question of precisely how much pay may lawfully be deducted”
can be “complex”, and that the Government’s view is that the common law is not sufficiently developed in this area.
That matters when we are debating these regulations, because employers deemed to have made an excessive pay deduction could be liable to have a complaint brought against them under section 236A of the 1992 Act. It seems, therefore, that the Government admit that this is a potential or actual grey area, but that they will not provide the clarity that we have sought, not least before these regulations come into effect. That could lead to serious consequences for employers.
I realise that there are a few questions there, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity on them. If she cannot provide the answers today, I would be grateful if she could write to me with them. My final remark, if I may, Ms Vaz, is that we last met in a delegated legislation Committee on 8 July and—it happens from time to time—the Minister was not able to answer all my questions in that Committee. I wrote to her on 9 July. She is a very diligent person, and I know she will be horrified to learn that she has not yet responded to me, 55 days later. I gently request that she ask her officials to send that response as soon as possible.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role.
Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary.
I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do.
The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces.
We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach.
I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face.
As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals.
On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would.
On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 22 June. It applies to Northern Ireland only and was developed in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and enforcement provisions relating to plant health, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of the Windsor framework obligations. As Members will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under annex 2 of the framework continue to apply to Northern Ireland. They include the movement of goods, agrifood standards and animal and plant health.
The draft instrument makes no changes to the Windsor framework. It amends six pieces of Northern Ireland legislation covering plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains clear, operable and aligned with requirements that already apply there under the Windsor agreement and framework. These legislative frameworks govern matters such as plant varieties, documentation requirements, traceability and plant health quality standards for fruit, vegetables, propagating material, forest reproductive materials and seed potatoes. They help to protect growers, traders and consumers by setting standards for products placed on the market and by ensuring that plant material can be traced and verified.
The draft instrument updates outdated references throughout the legislation, including references related to Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states, following the UK’s exit from the European Union. It also reflects relevant EU plant health legislation that is already directly applicable to Northern Ireland, including provisions related to regulated pests, diseases and reporting requirements.
The draft instrument also strengthens the domestic enforcement framework by ensuring that DAERA has clear powers to take proportionate action where plant health requirements are not met. While the requirements already apply to Northern Ireland, the draft instrument ensures that they can be fully enforced where necessary, including through penalties and prosecution in cases of serious non-compliance. That is important in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and maintaining a level playing field for businesses that comply with the rules.
Members will be aware that the Windsor framework restored the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, supporting growers and businesses across the sector. The draft instrument helps the legislative framework governing seed potatoes, alongside the other plant health controls, to remain effective and enforceable.
Importantly, the draft instrument does not introduce new requirements for businesses. It ensures that domestic legislation accurately reflects arrangements that are already in operation and supports Northern Ireland’s high standards of plant health and biosecurity. No formal public consultation was undertaken on the draft instrument because it introduces no new policy requirements. However, DAERA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have engaged extensively with stakeholders on the wider plant health arrangements operating under the Windsor framework.
I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in the draft instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. The draft instrument does not alter the Windsor framework, nor does it introduce new policy requirements. Its purpose is to ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains accurate, operable and capable of enforcing requirements that already apply. This is a technical but important measure. It updates Northern Ireland’s statute book, strengthens biosecurity protections, supports effective enforcement and introduces no new requirements for businesses. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
These regulations make necessary amendments to Northern Ireland’s legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material and ensure that it operates in accordance with the Windsor framework. Maintaining strong plant health protections is essential to safeguarding Northern Irish growers, Northern Irish food security and the natural environment. An outbreak of a serious pest or disease could have devastating consequences for agricultural production and rural businesses across Northern Ireland.
Plant health legislation is included under article 5(4) of the Windsor framework. The amendments in these draft regulations ensure that DEFRA has the necessary powers to enforce the plant health rules applying in Northern Ireland. They update prohibited lists of plants and pests, phytosanitary controls that govern the movement of plants for planting and other objects and conditions in relation to planting material and requirements for reporting and disposing of infected material. The instrument also removes provisions relating to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that are no longer applicable, introduces a GB-NI code for official labelling and makes several technical corrections.
These are important protections and the official Opposition will not be opposing the amendments laid today. It is right that DAERA possesses the powers that it needs to enforce the rules properly and to act where non-compliance is identified.
However, we do have some concerns. The Minister mentioned that no public consultation was undertaken on these amendments, but while DAERA and DEFRA engaged with key stakeholders, it is important to note that Northern Irish growers, seed potato producers and other affected businesses must also have a meaningful opportunity to make their views heard. Therefore, I would like to understand from the Minister if a level of engagement was had with those growers and organisations involved in that sector. Will the Minister identify which organisations, if any, DEFRA engaged with?
The Government have not produced a full impact assessment or established specific monitoring arrangements because the regulatory requirements already apply in Northern Ireland. They may already apply, but that does not necessarily mean that they impose no cost or administrative burden to businesses. Could the Minister assure us today that any unforeseen costs or practical difficulties will be identified and addressed, particularly if they could disrupt the movement of plant and seed potatoes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations. Strong and enforceable plant health protections are essential, and these amendments will provide DAERA with the powers it needs to protect Northern Ireland from dangerous pests and disease. However, regulations introduced under the Windsor framework must be accompanied by meaningful engagement, proper democratic scrutiny and close attention to their impact and practical consequences. While not opposing these amendments, we seek clarity from the Minister today around the assurances on consultation with stakeholders and the protection of trade within the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
The Minister outlined why these regulations were necessary and gave what, to most on the Committee, would be an acceptable argument: they are to protect biodiversity in Northern Ireland and to ensure that diseased plants are not accessing the Northern Ireland market. But of course, that is not the real reason; the real reason is contained in the regulations themselves. The regulations make it quite clear that they are necessary because Northern Ireland has to be regarded as if it were a member state of the European Union. That is the reason for this legislation. Although we have had Brexit, the vote and the decision to leave the EU, Northern Ireland is still to be treated as if it were a member of the European Union. That is the real reason behind it.
We would not need these regulations were it not for EU regulations having to apply to a certain part of the United Kingdom because it is regarded as part of the EU, regardless of the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU. This is not about protecting biodiversity. Most of the goods affected by this legislation will originate in GB. For years, those goods were able to enter the Northern Ireland market without any damage to the agriculture or nature of Northern Ireland.
The implication is that, somehow, the majority of the trade coming across from GB in plants, seed potatoes and so on must be suspect. That is why we have to have these separate regulations: to protect us from goods that, for years and years, we sourced from producers in GB. Now, suddenly, we need to protect the Northern Ireland economy from those goods. That is just nonsense. The real reason is that EU laws now apply in Northern Ireland. We are regarded as an EU state, and therefore those EU regulations have to be imposed. There is nothing to do with the protection of biodiversity or anything like that.
What exactly will these regulations do? First—the Minister has actually used these words himself—they will fully implement the Windsor framework. They are to fully implement EU laws in Northern Ireland—laws that were never decided by this House or by the Northern Ireland Assembly, but by a foreign Administration, and about which there was never any say.
What is the impact of that? Let me give one example. When it comes to the import of seed materials, we would have imported a lot of our seed potatoes from Scotland. Now there are regulations stating that, if someone brings in more than 2 kg of those seed potatoes, there is a whole pile of additional administration.
As a keen gardener, I used to send to Fothergill’s—as did a lot of other people—to get my seed potatoes. I cannot get them any longer, because business-to-individual sales of many plants are forbidden under these regulations. If, for example, some of the big potato growers in my constituency want to bring potatoes in from outside, there is a whole range of information that has to be provided if they import more than 2 kg of potatoes, and draft regulation 5(14) states that.
What has been the effect? I can think of a number of companies that used to sell to me as an individual consumer or to garden centres in my constituency. They no longer sell. Why? Because they are now subject to all these additional regulations. If they do not abide by those regulations—we have already seen this—those goods can be seized, destroyed, re-exported or detained by DAERA in Northern Ireland. That is not something which is just a maybe; it happens currently.
Last year, 43 such consignments were seized by DAERA and either detained, re-exported or destroyed. That begs the question, if DAERA already has the powers to do that, why is the legislation required? It is required because it now gives DAERA the ability to do this with the imprimatur of the EU. We have not only the imprimatur of our Government, which signed up to the Windsor framework agreement; we now have the imprimatur of the EU.
The regulations are full of jargon and everything else. I am trying to spell out the practical implications. As I have said, first, Northern Ireland is now treated as part of the EU. I do not know how anyone who claims to be a British parliamentarian can accept that as a reason for this legislation. Secondly, the legislation has disrupted trade significantly. In fact, there are some goods that are not even subject to regulation—they are simply banned. There are some trees that would normally have been imported into Northern Ireland that are now banned from being brought in because the EU has regulations against them.
As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, pointed out, it was also not even deemed necessary to have a consultation or to get consent. I wonder how much of the information in support of, or even about, the regulations was gathered from many of the garden centre owners in Northern Ireland who are severely impacted by them, whether by not being able to get supplies, supplies becoming more expensive or, more likely, now having to go to the Irish Republic to get their supplies, where they are more expensive and probably inferior goods. That is the irony.
In my own constituency, the wee forest at my own house is now affected by Ash dieback. Many of the trees there are now dying and have been cut down. They were not diseased trees that came from GB, where the regulations require that the trees be inspected. They came from other parts of the EU without the necessary inspections. That is the irony. The Minister can talk about protecting biodiversity, but the regulations do not do that. All they do is ensure that a bad agreement, which should never have been signed, and which has constitutionally split up the UK and its internal market, is now going to be fully implemented.
I say to Members, regardless of their political persuasions and everything else: that is not right and should not be supported. It is a bit of an irony that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill in the main Chamber, which is meant to be all about democracy in the United Kingdom, and yet we are not exercising democracy in Northern Ireland if we pass this legislation. It is not just some kind of semantic argument about what democracy is; it has real practical implications for people who live in my constituency.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I remind everybody that this is quite a tight set of regulations, so please try to keep your comments focused on what is before us, rather than expanding the arguments to issues surrounding how we may have got here today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you, Sir Alec; I can do that by taking the Committee precisely to the words of the regulations. Here we are, a Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, supposedly, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the Committee has been invited to write into six separate regulations affecting these issues in Northern Ireland a declaration to the effect that Northern Ireland is not really part of the United Kingdom, and in fact is someone else’s territory.
If anyone is interested, I invite them to look at page 17 of the regulations. Things can be found in numerous places, but on page 17 there is an amendment under part 7 of the regulations to the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. At the top of the page, it says:
“In these regulations”—
these are regulations affecting a part of the United Kingdom—
“any reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union…any reference to the Union”—
that is the EU—
“or Union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland.”
What we are putting into legislation that applies to Northern Ireland and the standards that apply to a range of materials and goods is a formal legal declaration that my part of the United Kingdom is not in truth a part of the United Kingdom.
According to this, I am to be read as being part of the EU’s territory. I say to every member of this Committee: if the regulations said that about your constituency, what would you say? I say that in particular to Conservative and Unionist Members. If the regulations said that their part of the United Kingdom is to be treated as if it is not part of the United Kingdom, but as a territory of a foreign jurisdiction—namely, the EU—would they come to this Committee, nod the change through and say, “It is only technical”? It might be technical to the Minister and the official Opposition, but I can tell them it is a lot more than technical to the people of Northern Ireland who we represent in this House. It is a fundamental constitutional slight on our supposed membership of the United Kingdom.
Through that slight and through the regulations we have imposed laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that someone else makes. The regulations do not put into these six statutory instruments standards made, created or thought about by this House; they impose standards made, created and thought about by foreign parliamentarians, none of whom we elect. That is the mischief and the insult of the regulations that we are imposing on those who deal with seed potatoes or any of these plant health issues. They are someone else’s regulations. What sort of parliamentarians are we if we think it is okay to let someone who no one from this United Kingdom elects decide what the standards should be within this United Kingdom? That is precisely what the regulations do today, and that is far more than technical, Minister. It is fundamental.
It goes further. Under part 7, we now are imposing sanctions if someone breaches foreign-made regulations. What sort of United Kingdom is it? This House is going to pass regulations that say that people can be fined or dealt with by other sanctions not because they break the regulations of our own Government or the regulations of their own Parliament, but because they break the regulation of someone else’s Parliament. That is the absurdity that the Windsor framework has brought to Northern Ireland. Unless and until this House wakens up to that absurdity and asserts itself as a sovereign Parliament—supposedly—of this United Kingdom, we are going to continue to be subject to this insult. I say to every member of the Committee, particularly those who profess a belief in the Union of the United Kingdom, that it might be a small measure to some—not much more than a technical issue—but the Committee could at least take a small stand against it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. This instrument has been presented as a technical one, but there is nothing insignificant about creating new criminal liability under laws imposed on Northern Ireland by the European Union. The regulations amend six separate areas of Northern Ireland law, covering vegetable plants, ornamental plants, forestry material, seed potatoes, fruit plants and official plant health controls.
As the Committee has heard, the constitutional language is extraordinary. The instrument states that Northern Ireland is to be read as if it were a member state of the European Union. It replaces references to UK standards with references to European Union standards. In relation to forest reproductive material, Great Britain is classified as an “EU-approved third country”. That is certainly not a tidying up of legislation; it writes Northern Ireland out of its own country and into the regulatory territory of the European Union.
Most seriously, regulation 7 inserts a new list of EU instruments into Northern Ireland law and makes non-compliance with them an offence. The instrument expressly states that references to those EU laws include those laws
“as amended from time to time.”
In other words, future changes made in Brussels can alter the rules with which Northern Ireland businesses must comply, without any vote in this House or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those rules cover matters including pet passports, the movement of seed potatoes, the destruction of infected plants and even the cleaning or destruction of machinery, vehicles, stores and packaging, yet there was no public consultation, and not one Northern Ireland farmer, grower, nursery seed producer or forestry business was formally asked for their view. That is outrageous, given that it impacts them the most.
Nor has a full impact assessment been produced, because the Government claim that there will be no significant financial impact. That is simply not good enough when Parliament is being asked to approve new offences. DAERA already has powers to detain, reject, re-export or destroy consignments, and those powers were used 43 times in 2025. DEFRA has confirmed that the enforcement gap caused no negative effect on compliance or biosecurity. The Minister must therefore explain what failure requires these new offences, who could be prosecuted and why Northern Ireland businesses were denied a consultation.
This instrument exposes the reality of the Windsor framework: EU law, EU standards and EU enforcement imposed on one part of the United Kingdom without any democratic consent. I simply ask Committee members to search their hearts. If this was happening to their constituency, their constituents and businesses in their part of this great United Kingdom, they would not like it and they would vote against it. I ask the Committee to do the right thing by Northern Ireland and our place in this United Kingdom.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his constructive engagement on these matters, and all Members who have shared their insights and views.
The shadow Minister noted that there has been no public consultation on this instrument because there is no legal duty to do so. However, DAERA has worked closely with DEFRA to engage with relevant stakeholders on the wider plant health requirements under the Windsor framework, including through the relevant working groups and, I can assure him, through engagement with the Ulster Farmers Union. There is ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, and strong relationships are in place.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact on trade. I assure all Members that the instrument introduces no new requirements for traders and will not have any impact on trade.
Stephen Morgan
I will make some progress.
A number of Members made broader points about constitutional matters. I appreciate the strength of feeling on the wider constitutional issues, but I assure all Members that the instrument respects Northern Ireland’s integral position as part of the United Kingdom. It is a UK-made and UK-scrutinised piece of legislation, operating within the scope of the UK’s international commitment to introducing and applying domestic legislation to Northern Ireland. It upholds the UK Government’s commitment to implementing the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework is the legal framework currently in force, and this instrument operates within it. That is a clear improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol and the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances in the long term.
Let me turn back to the specifics of the statutory instrument. It serves only to update Northern Ireland’s plant health legislation to ensure that it is clear, operable and accurate. That not only gives clarity to DAERA in the vital roles that it delivers in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity, but gives clarity and stability to Northern Ireland stakeholders, ensuring that all parties play their part in doing what is necessary to maintain plant health in Northern Ireland.
By ensuring that the requirements of this instrument are correct and clear, we ensure that there are no legislative gaps or room for confusion in dealing with the complex plant health environment, thus contributing to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s trade and economic success in the agri-food, horticultural and forestry and woodland sectors. The instrument will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations under the Windsor framework, and will serve to ensure that high biosecurity standards for Northern Ireland are observed for years to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 June.
When it comes to development and the environment, this Government have been clear that we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. To that end, we legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to introduce a nature restoration fund that will unlock and accelerate development, going beyond simply offsetting harm to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery. The purpose of the NRF is simple: to end the current suboptimal approach to discharging environmental obligations, in which developers are required to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo; and to replace that with a more strategic approach that will streamline delivery of new homes and infrastructure, while efficiently delivering improved environmental outcomes by leveraging economies of scale and reducing need for costly project-level assessments.
As hon. Members are aware, the core principles and purpose of the NRF were subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses. Relevant clauses of the original Bill were strengthened in a number of important ways during its passage to provide further reassurance that the fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. It would not be appropriate to relitigate the lengthy debates that took place in the Bill Committee, but I take this opportunity to emphasise that strong safeguards were built into the 2025 Act to ensure that the fund will restore, not harm, nature. Those include a binding overall improvement test, monitoring and back-up measures, remedial action and the ability to amend or revoke plans if necessary.
Shifting to a strategic approach requires positive planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of the model. EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser in respect of the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species. Those conservation measures will then be deployed by Natural England where they will have the greatest environmental benefit.
Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England before an EDP can be made. At the conclusion of that process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established under the Act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers. That levy is the subject of the draft regulations that we are considering.
The draft nature restoration levy regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They will provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred, and they explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when payment will be due, and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England when obligations are not met.
The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. The draft regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of such measures. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner, and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules, which will form part of the EDP, which is consulted on. Those charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the development impacts.
At times during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were expressed that funds collected through the NRF might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. I assure hon. Members that the draft regulations will ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of the conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and for the administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements on how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny. I stress that levy receipts are subject to a statutory ringfence and must be used to deliver the EDP for which they were collected. Only costs reasonably attributable to that EDP can be funded through levy income.
I am also aware of concerns regarding the potential impacts of EDPs on development viability. I want to make it clear, however, that we have put in place important safeguards to protect developers who choose to use the NRF from unjustified costs. Public consultation and rigorous Secretary of State scrutiny of each EDP will ensure that proposed levy rates are carefully considered before any EDP is made. It is also worth reiterating—we debated this issue at length in Committee—that in almost all cases EDPs will be voluntary and developers will have the option to meet obligations through existing routes if they do not believe that discharging their obligations through the NRF represents good value for money.
Although the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. I am pleased to say that initial guidance has now been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. The guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist as we work to roll out the NRF.
To conclude, the regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF by ensuring that the levy operates effectively, transparently and fairly so that we can build the homes and infrastructure our country needs while improving our natural environment for future generations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. As the Minister set out in his introduction, there was extensive debate during the Committee on the Bill that has brought this set of regulations to life. There was certainly a lot of cross-party debate about the provision; that reflects the public interest in the impact that development can have on nature and wildlife in particular. Although there was a degree of political disagreement about the policy itself, I think we all shared the objective: having a more functional system. That is clearly the Government’s objective, so we will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon.
However, I have some questions for the Minister. When we debated the issue in Committee, he was clear that in due course this legislation would come forward and there would be an opportunity to look at the points of detail that Members had raised. My first question is about any assessment that he has undertaken of Natural England’s capacity to administer the process. We heard in the Committee evidence sessions from different development organisations that talked about how difficult it sometimes was to get a decision from Natural England because of its lack of capacity when a development had been approved but there remained elements that Natural England needed to sign off. Clearly, this legislation envisages a significant role for Natural England in the planning process—much larger than it currently occupies, and one that it said in evidence to the Committee it would welcome. But making those decisions and the financial underpinning will come at a significant cost, in terms of both people and skills. Will the Minister set out what assessments have been undertaken to ensure that the provision does not lead to further delays through the administration of the levy scheme?
The second question relates to a point that we touched on in Committee and is not, as far as I can see, fully addressed in the papers: the treatment of levy payments in kind. We heard examples of when developers had said that, rather than make a cash contribution, they would seek to offer another site where they would create an appropriate wetland habitat, habitat for birds or whatever, which would have a value attached to it. In the normal course of events, the Government already negotiate to determine whether a financial contribution can be made in the form of an asset that has a value, rather than in cash. It is not immediately clear how that type of situation would be handled, especially given that Natural England will be separate from the planning authority making the decision on the scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister told us how the Government envisage dealing with that.
Finally, in Committee a point was raised that I do not think the papers entirely address: how the policy will operate where we are talking about cumulative impacts. It is straightforward for a developer that has needed to raze a woodland to demonstrate that it is financing an alternative site, to be managed by Natural England, that will recreate that habitat elsewhere. But what about developers with numerous smaller sites? How will their accumulated contribution be used to ensure that there is appropriate remediation? When those sites are in different planning authorities, how can there be an appropriate negotiation so that things are not held up because one planning authority is trying to determine the impact and another has a separate application, but the contributions from both are key to ensure that the remediation is sufficient?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will try to keep my questions brief. I want to be clear from the outset: I am not here to oppose the principle of the regulations—indeed, I agree with the Minister that they must work for the sake of nature restoration. However, some serious concerns have been raised with me about how they are drafted, perhaps because they have not gone through a formal consultation process.
I will focus on one key point. As I understand it, there is no third-party oversight to ensure that the levy is calculated at the right amount to secure the objectives of the environmental delivery plans, although I understand that there is third-party oversight within comparable regulations for the community infrastructure levy. That matters because I understand that a key element of the primary legislation is that the overall improvement test should be based on whether the EDP, if delivered in full, would secure an overall improvement in the environmental feature in question. Although the EDP might be sound, if the nature restoration fund levy amount is not set at an appropriate level there is a risk that the overall improvement test could be null and void because there would not be the right amount of funding.
I also understand that the regulations allow the Secretary of State to change the levy rate at any time without notice. That presumably creates considerable jeopardy for developers who do not have a legal route to exit once they have committed. It would also seem to create an avenue for a lot of political pressure to be brought to bear to reduce the amount of the levy—possibly to improve the viability of certain development schemes. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those concerns and encourage him to consider how they might be addressed before the regulations come into effect.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the shadow Minister for those questions. Let me deal with them each in turn. It may be useful if I set out in plainer terms how an EDP will be made and how the levy will be set.
The shadow Minister asked first about Natural England capacity. We debated that at length during the passage of the Bill: we believe that Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF, given its internal expertise and ability to operate effectively across the whole of England. It is also worth saying that when carrying out its functions under the nature restoration fund, Natural England remains bound by its wider statutory duties and general purposes, as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2026. Those include promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity.
We think that Natural England is the appropriate body. It will be supported to take strategic action to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs, using income from the nature restoration levy. This is a really important point: the levy is based on full cost recovery. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the levy can be used to support administrative duties tied to the EDP, but is primarily to fund conservation measures that EDPs will bring forward, on a full cost-recovery basis. The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover management, maintenance and other things. That will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability needed to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.
The important point to convey to the Committee is that each EDP will be subject to public consultation. In line with the commitment we made in the other place, we have been working for many months with Natural England and DEFRA on the first EDP, which deals solely with nutrient pollution; we thought that was the best constraint to take the first EDP forward on.
In bringing forward an EDP, Natural England will have to project and estimate the maximum amount of development that that EDP can cater for and set a levy rate based on what is necessary to deliver the conservation measures required to discharge and meet that overall improvement test; I will come back to that in a second. Natural England will set a levy for each individual EDP. That will be subject to public consultation. Environmental groups, local residents, local authorities and developers will each have a say on the particular levy being consulted on. That gives the public a chance to have input into what is taken forward.
David Simmonds
The Minister has helpfully set out how we expect the EDP process to work in practice. When he was talking about how it would be financed, he described what could be extensive and lengthy public consultation, requiring expert input in designing habitats and so forth. Clearly, that will come at a significant cost. Will the cost to Natural England of administering the scheme be paid for out of the levy income itself or is there a separate funding mechanism that will enable Natural England to carry out that work?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an appropriate question. The shadow Minister may recall that during the passage of the Bill we committed to some upfront funding for Natural England. However, we have come to the regulations before us: the point is that the levy is designed to operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as covering the costs of monitoring and maintenance activities. Some of the levy can be used on the cost of setting up and consulting on an EDP but it is primarily for bringing the conservation measures forward.
The shadow Minister also asked about payments in lieu—off-site payments, as I took it. The regulations do not provide for that. That is not the assumption that we are working on.
I come back to what an EDP means in practice. Let us take the case of nutrient pollution, which will be the first we consult on. Natural England will have put together a suite of conservation measures across a designated area that it can call on to ensure that the overall improvement test is met. As I said in my opening remarks, each individual developer can still decide to discharge relevant environmental obligations under current arrangements if they do not feel that the levy rate provides value for money. However, we hope that the workings of the EDP will show that it is a very effective, efficient way to discharge those obligations. We hope that more developers will come in.
As the levy payments come in, Natural England will begin to draw on the suite of conservation measures available to it. We are taking forward separate regulations on the prioritisation of conservation measures: as part of an EDP, Natural England will have to set out in general terms a prioritisation and sequencing of conservation measures. Those are not mutually exclusive; some might be relevant and used in different instances. This is about what it brings forward to meet those requirements. As more developers come within the given area where the EDP is operating, Natural England will be able to leverage economies of scale. That is the big win here: allowing those economies of scale and that strategic approach. The regulations are not designed for payments in lieu.
I hope that I have dealt with the cumulative impact. When it comes to individual planning applications, developers will have to indicate that they wish to discharge their obligations through the EDP. At that point, there will be a commitment to pay on the part of Natural England. The developer can then use that commitment to take that through the relevant planning process. The planning process may not be successful, but if it is, the liability to pay is ensured and there will be payment into the scheme.
In terms of cumulative impact, a particular developer may seek to discharge its obligations on a site-by-site, project-level basis, using EDPs only on some sites in the catchment—again, we would hope not; we want as many developers to be using EDPs as possible. That is probably unlikely if developers see that EDPs are working for them as an efficient way to discharge the obligations. I am sure that developers will start to make better use of the scheme.
Let me address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised, including on changing the levy without consultation. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 sets out the circumstances where reconsultation on an EDP is required, such as where new conservation measures are proposed or the amount of development coverage is increased. There are a couple of scenarios where that might work. Say the projected development of homes or infrastructure increases; there might be a need to amend the EDP. Alternatively, additional conservation measures might be required.
Under the powers in the Act, the Secretary of State may direct Natural England to reconsult when there are changes to the EDP’s charging schedule. That allows the levy rate to change to meet the cost of the EDP, in line with the overall improvement test, but it does not require reconsultation in all circumstances. We would not want a wholesale public consultation on minor changes to the levy rate; when there are significant changes, the Secretary of State has the power to do that. The levy rate for developers is set at the point where Natural England accepts the commitment to pay. If the levy rate subsequently needs to be increased to ensure that the required conservation measures can be delivered, the new rate will take effect only for future requests made to the EDP.
In terms of independent oversight, EDPs will not be black-box exercises; as we said, they are subject to public consultation. In the very near future we will launch the consultation on the first EDP, which is on nutrient neutrality. Before an EDP can take effect, local authorities, environmental groups and others will have a chance to scrutinise it in its entirety. Natural England must then consider the consultation responses before finalising the EDP and the Secretary of State retains statutory oversight through the approval of the EDP itself and whether it meets the overall improvement test. I do not want to relitigate the extensive debates in Committee, but that overall improvement test is the test that must be met. In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation.
I have covered whether the levy funds are not required to meet costs in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised the absence of a legal route to exit a commitment if circumstances change, but we have designed the draft regulations to accommodate the changing circumstances that developers might face. The regulations allow for levy-related commitments to be cancelled in specified scenarios, ensuring that the system can respond when a development does not proceed as anticipated. That reflects a proportionate approach to provide certainty for Natural England in delivering the necessary conservation measures, while recognising that plans can change over the lifetime of a development.
David Simmonds
I want to test the Minister’s thinking on that point. As constituency MPs, many of us have heard about section 106, where a significant number of contributions may be attached to school places, road improvements or whatever it may be. When the money is not spent within a specified period of time, the developer can reclaim it so that it cannot be redirected to other purposes, depending on what is in the agreement.
Another challenge is what happens when developers in a new town, for example, prefer to pay the levy, but the total of all the payments exceeds the value of the work that Natural England is undertaking because of the extent of the development, so something else needs to be substituted. Will the Minister set out briefly how the Government propose to address such issues so that the legislation does not, in practice, turn out to be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare for many of the communities involved?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. That brings me back to my point about how the levy is set and how it is tested through public consultation. It will be for Natural England to judge the quantum of development to be taken forward and to divide the individual charge on a per-hectare or per-dwelling basis in the most appropriate way. However, at the point when the developer seeks to discharge its environmental obligations through the use of the levy it will have consented to pay that levy amount.
We will test the levy amount through public consultation, but the test of whether the levy is set effectively is that it allows for the conservation measures to be deployed. There is a statutory ringfence on the funds, so it is not as if the funds could be diverted to other uses. As we made clear repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, EDPs will be based on the best scientific evidence available and on all the expertise in Natural England to allow it to judge whether it has the levy rate right. As I said, that will be tested in consultation. To answer the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that the value should not be exceeded.
I think I have responded to all the points. I thank Members for their questions. To be clear, this draft statutory instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the nature restoration fund effectively. The draft regs are a necessary precursor to that first consultation, which as I have made clear will concern nutrient pollution only. That is the commitment that we gave.
We will return to the House with an evaluation of how that consultation worked before we proceed, although Natural England and DEFRA are working on the early stages of the EDPs for other interventions—great crested newts are a priority for colleagues in DEFRA. I hope that the draft regulations will be welcomed by the Committee and I commend them to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Butler. May I also congratulate myself on securing this debate? It came as a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that there would be an overwhelming clamour to secure a debate to celebrate the 10 years since the Brexit referendum. I thought people would be tripping over themselves to ensure that they could tell us about all the wonderful things that have happened. It would have been an opportunity to go wandering through the sunlit uplands to celebrate the dynamic economic growth and political stability that had been secured, the fact that immigration was under control, and all the wonders of our new-found freedoms.
Do you remember, Ms Butler? We were going to have our cake and eat it, we were going to secure the easiest trade deal in history, and of course we were going to take back control. From the lofty heights up there in the sunlit uplands, we could have peered down and admired all the shiny new hospitals that we had managed to build because of the £350 million we had saved weekly from the evil and wicked EU. Perhaps, in a more reflective moment, we could have thought back and wondered why we ever put up with those bendy bananas, the vacuum cleaners that lacked that extra Brexit suction, or EU lightbulbs that would not even light, and about how, thank goodness, the existential threat to the great British sausage had been removed and Brexit had saved us from all the barmy Brussels bureaucrats.
There are some anniversaries that we look forward to, such as birthdays and weddings, and some that invite solemn reflection, such as the end of wars, the passing of great men and women, and great historical events. Then, of course, there is the Brexit referendum anniversary, which somehow feels so different from all the other things that we mark. Brexit is a rather extraordinary anniversary to celebrate.
Pete Wishart
I will just finish this point. It is 10 years since we embarked on what has turned out to be one of the most self-defeating exercises in political and economic self-harm inflicted in modern political history—a bizarre, destructive and economically illiterate political project that has made everybody in this country so much worse off. On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Rosindell
I am very confused. The hon. Gentleman seems passionate about independence for Scotland, so why does he not believe in independence for the whole United Kingdom?
Pete Wishart
I can assure the hon. Gentleman within a second that I am all for independence—but not for the bizarre notion that keeps on coming up that membership of the European Union means automatically losing independence. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Italians or any of the other members of the European Union, who as far as I am concerned pretty much enjoy their own independence. That is what we want to do in Scotland.
In the 10 years since the Brexit referendum, we have had seven Prime Ministers. Even a new Labour Government with a majority of 172 have not been immune from the instability of the Brexit era, barely making it to the two-year mark before they had to replace their first Prime Minister.
Let us turn first to the economy. I am grateful, as always, to the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent briefing for this debate. I really encourage colleagues to have a look at it. It is remarkably clear about the broad economic evidence. There is now substantial and significant consensus that the UK economy is smaller than it would have been had we remained in the European Union.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
My constituency has one of the busiest roll-on roll-off ports, in Holyhead. There has been an announcement regarding passport requirements for travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Teithiau Elfyn, a local tour company, has warned me of the serious economic impact of such short-notice announcements. Does the hon. Member agree that the Brexit agreement has not worked for the people of Ynys Môn or Wales, and has had a negative impact on the economy?
Pete Wishart
This hon. Member more than agrees with the hon. Lady and thoroughly endorses what she says. It is not just Ynys Môn or Wales; every part of this United Kingdom has been impacted and hurt by this crazy project.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a humorous speech about bananas and sausages that is making me hungry. Yesterday, the new Prime Minister spoke of wrong turns going back as far as the 1980s. There is a wrong turn he could do something about, because the EU reset that the previous Prime Minister promised was a disaster. He gave away 12 years’ access to our waters in Scotland in return for very little. In fact, when the coastal and fishing growth fund was disbursed, there was a pittance for Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Prime Minister is serious about undoing wrong turns, he should have the courage to do something about Brexit?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he brings us right up to date in the debate about Brexit. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday and what he had to say about European Union membership. I want to come on to that because we are at an important juncture. We have new opportunities to go forward, and I hope that this new Labour UK Government make the right choice. I will come to that, so I ask my hon. Friend for his patience, which I know he will be able to supply me with.
I want to get back to the economics. It is now estimated that GDP is anything between 2% and 8% lower than if we had remained in the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests a 4% reduction in productivity, and Goldman Sachs estimates that the UK economy is around 6% smaller than it would otherwise have been. I want to be clear: that does not mean that Britain suddenly became 8% poorer on the morning of 24 June 2016. Of course, Britain continued to grow, and we have experienced some economic growth. The argument is that the UK has grown less than it otherwise would have done. Brexit was never going to be a spectacular economic crash. If anything, it is more insidious than that. Brexit is more akin to a slow puncture. The economy keeps growing, the car keeps moving forward, but the driving gets tougher as we negotiate in a harsher environment.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the economy, does the hon. Gentleman remember, as I do, the weeks before the referendum, when we were told amid all the scaremongering that if we voted to leave, house prices would decline by 28%? They did not. We were also told that unemployment would rise, but it did not. Does he recall those scaremongering headlines?
Pete Wishart
Indeed I do. They were almost as ridiculous as the extraordinary claims that were made about what would happen if we left the European Union, from the £350 million saved per week to the claims about bendy bananas and sausages. They were absurd, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it was a poor debate, but he cannot disagree with the evidence from the House of Commons Library and all the major financial institutions that Brexit has been an economic disaster. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree with that basic statement.
I will come on to trade, because that is equally important. The OBR assumes that Brexit will ultimately reduce UK imports and exports by around 15% relative to the scenario had we remained in the European Union. Again, that does not mean that our exports have literally fallen by 15%, but the additional barriers created by Brexit mean we trade less than we otherwise would have done.
That matters because the European Union is still by far our largest trading partner. In 2025, the EU accounted for 41% of our exports of goods and services and around half of our imports. So much for the idea that we would effortlessly turn our back on Europe and replace all that trade with new deals around the world. Yes, of course, there have been useful, good trade deals with the likes of New Zealand, Australia and India. They have benefits, but they barely touch the sides of the trade relationship we already had with the European Union.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
In Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton we have been negatively impacted by the effects of the steel strategy and by measures brought in by the EU such as tariffs and quotas. Does the hon. Member agree that if we had a closer trading relationship with the EU, constituencies like mine and likely his would be far better off?
Pete Wishart
Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom.
I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023.
Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?
Pete Wishart
I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today.
Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats.
Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties.
For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Over the summer I was with a constituent who, while celebrating the UK Government’s recent music strategy, recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the significant challenge of getting into Europe. Fifty-nine per cent of UK musicians say that touring in Europe has become unviable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that British musicians and other touring artists face barriers that did not exist pre Brexit? Would he encourage the Minister to look seriously at accelerating improvement in this area?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. We have had this issue for seven or eight years. I remember securing the first urgent question when it was recognised as a problem. We have had a long time to fix it. I see that the Minister is taking notes; one thing he could reassure the House on is that the music will move. Get it moving, because there is no reason why it should be stuck behind the English channel.
We are told that all this is happening—and I am afraid to say that we are going to hear it again today—because it is the wrong type of Brexit. Who knew? Apparently, it was the wrong deal. Variously, it was the wrong Government—the wrong everything—but the hard Brexiteers got everything they wanted. They got everything they asked for and more: no customs union, no freedom of movement, no single market, no European court jurisdiction, no EU institutions and no going back. What we have now is not an accidental form of Brexit that just happened to emerge out of the ashes. It was everything that they fought for decades to achieve. The conclusion is that there is no magic Brexit. There is no Brexit where we get all the benefits of membership without the obligations. There is no Brexit where we have frictionless trade without accepting that the rules are necessary for frictionless trade. There is no cake and eating it.
Lastly, there is the extraordinary position of this Labour Government. They know that Brexit is an absolute and utter disaster. There is no getting away from it. The evidence is right in front of them. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, and he was absolutely right to reference Brexit as one of the biggest issues that has damaged this country in the last 10 years. They know that our relationship with our largest trading partner is fundamentally broken, but they have tied themselves up in knots with these unnecessary and useless red lines. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they continue to tinker around the edges. There is a little veterinary agreement here, a little customs improvement there, a bit of mutual recognition, a bit of youth mobility, a bit of this, a bit of that—a bit of a big fat nothing, because that is what it is.
The Government have their reset plans, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will almost exclusively tell us about, but they are nothing more than the same old tinkering.
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Sorry, but lots of people wish to speak.
None of the Government’s plans solves the real problem, which is getting back into the EU. The British public are so far ahead of them on this, it is almost unbelievable. Rejoining the EU is by far the most popular option when presented to the British public. According to Ipsos, 58% of voters would back rejoining the bloc, with almost half supporting a new referendum after the next general election. Only 33% think that the UK should stay out. If only the Government had that in their manifesto, they would be an absolute shoo-in to continue in government maybe not just for the next Parliament, but for the one after that.
Not everything that has gone wrong in the UK in the last 10 years is down to Brexit—of course not. We have had covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, inflation and 14 years of the chaotic Tories to help make matters much worse. But Brexit is a slow puncture rather than a spectacular crash, and since 2016 we have had to navigate the increasingly difficult terrain of all these international difficulties with a flat Brexit tyre.
Brexit was sold as a moment when we would open our doors and regain our freedom, but all we have done is secure more paperwork. We were told that we would take back control, but immigration has skyrocketed to record levels. We were told that Brexit would free us from Brussels bureaucracy, but we have only created our own UK bureaucracy to deal with leaving the Brussels bureaucracy.
Perhaps the best thing that we can do today is remember what was promised and what was achieved. We in Scotland most definitely remember. We remember back in another referendum—the referendum on Scottish independence—being told that the only way to secure Scotland’s EU future was to vote to stay within the UK Union. What happened to that? Brexit has been an utter disaster. It is a shameless project that has made everybody worse off. Let us reflect on that again, and hopefully in 10 years’ time we will be back in the European Union enjoying the prosperity that we deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to stand if they would like to participate in the debate. I will impose a hard three-minute time limit. Please be mindful of your comrades if you take interventions.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.
The behaviour of the right-wing media outlets that peddled the views of their billionaire owners about the Brexit referendum was a perfect example of the wealthy and powerful influencing our politics and, ultimately, striving to maintain the existing class structure of our country. Much of the multimillionaire and billionaire class saw the Brexit referendum as a business opportunity and, through the media, they latched on to and exploited the despair that many working-class communities felt.
It is incredibly frustrating that politicians refuse to accept why millions of working-class people voted for Brexit, but it really should not take too much analysis. Communities felt demoralised and desperate, and people needed something to change—so much so that they grasped on to the notion that leaving the European Union was the answer to improve their lives. I do not blame them, because places have been asset-stripped and abandoned. MPs arrogantly preaching to people that they were wrong to vote for Brexit will not cut through in marginalised communities. That only drives people into the political extremes of the right.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the public were misled by the information provided to them about Brexit. Does he agree with that?
Brian Leishman
That is a reasonable, candid and honest assessment, and I agree with it.
It is up to us, now that we are in government, to raise living standards and give people faith and hope. If we do that, the spivs and speculators of Reform and Restore will be rejected. So I say to the Minister: can we properly analyse why right-wing parties are convincing people that they are the ones who will turn people’s lives around? They are conning people again, even after the lies that they told about Brexit.
Referendums have a vital place in our democracy, but let us acknowledge that they can create uneasy bedfellows and awkward alliances. The impact of that is clear when I look at the fortunes of my Scottish Labour party. I am afraid that Scotland is still dominated by the constitutional question. Painting everyone as either nationalist or Unionist has distracted Scots from the real political issue that affects us: whether you are from Alloa or Aldershot, Stenhousemuir or Stoke, politics is always about class. Class must be put back on the political agenda. Many people back home do not know what we in Scottish Labour now stand for or who we stand with. We must appreciate that campaigning alongside Tories, who did so much damage to Scotland, was seen as a betrayal of our class.
If we ever want a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood again, we must appeal to what was once a large chunk of our Scottish Labour vote, which has found its political home in the Scottish National party. Do we not see that competing for just a small, diminishing Unionist vote is swimming in shallow, crowded waters and will never lead to us being in government again? I am not saying that we should back independence, but we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum. If we do that, we will be speaking to a huge number of Scots who left us. Who knows? They might even listen to us again.
Scotland needs to break the constitutional deadlock and Scottish Labour needs to shift from a position of dogged inflexibility, otherwise we are heading for the irrelevance of perpetual opposition. That would mean we would never be able to put Labour values into a Government that Scotland so desperately needs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Gentleman for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He and I know that we will not agree on this subject, but we are good friends and Gaelic cousins. I appreciate his point of view; my point of view will be very different.
Ten years ago, the people of the United Kingdom made a historic sovereign decision to leave the European Union. They voted to take back control of our laws, borders and cash, but as a proud Unionist and staunch Brexiteer, I stand here to declare that the impact of the referendum is uncertain because the job is not yet finished. There is still work to be done.
I will outline some of the issues in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework does not fix the problem; it institutionalises it. It leaves a border in the Irish sea, dividing us from our biggest market and tearing at the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. How can we say we have fully left the EU when Northern Ireland is still subject to laws that it has no say in making and that are judged by a foreign court? How can we say that we have taken back control when our hard-working farmers face losing half their vital veterinary medicines simply because Brussels dictates what can and cannot cross the Irish sea? That is a fundamental denial of democracy.
How can we talk about the result of the vote when it is a constitutional outrage that our own Government’s ability to support British businesses in Northern Ireland is legally handcuffed by European competition courts through a ban on state aid? How can we talk about the vote and the UK when every time a consumer in my Strangford constituency picks up a pint of milk stamped with “Not for the EU” they are looking at a badge of foreign interference in our internal UK market?
True Brexit means Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for the mainland of Great Britain. We have been trapped in a dynamic alignment. If the mainland innovates and cuts red tape, Northern Ireland is legally forbidden from joining them because we are chained to the EU customs code. That is not the best of both worlds; it is economic partition.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does my hon. Friend agree that a classic example of that, which we had some time ago, was when companies selling plants and seeds in Great Britain could not supply them to Northern Ireland, but people could buy them here and take them over on a plane? That was all down to the Windsor framework and the subsequent hash that Governments have made of the Brexit vote.
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree. I was going to come on to that issue, but he has done it for me so I will leave it at that.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is a friend of mine, but we fundamentally cannot agree on this issue. I believe in accepting a democratic vote, not ignoring it. When we believe that we know better than the people, it is no longer a democracy; it is a dictatorship. Hon. Members are allowed to hate that result, but they are not allowed to overrule it without due process. We need to finish the job that the people voted for in 2016. That means removing the Windsor framework, stripping away the remaining vestiges of EU interference and fully restoring the internal market of the United Kingdom.
We must solidify our precious Union. We are undeniably stronger together; I am sure my friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru will take note of that. Our economic, cultural and political bonds are what makes this nation great. Our focus must be on strengthening the ties between Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and London, not managing an artificial barrier forced on us by Brussels. Let us stand firm, deliver on the full promise of 2016 and secure a truly United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for generations to come. We are always better together.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Before I start, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on the media’s conduct in the referendum.
I will touch briefly on the issue of music. I was speaking recently to an orchestra member who is active in my local party over the weekend about the issues that he has experienced with touring, and to a local venue operator who used to welcome musicians from Europe to Northumberland. It supported our tourism sector and supported the exchange of ideas. It enhanced opportunities for young people to see the world beyond the north-east. It is a crying shame that we have lost not just the ability for our musicians to go abroad, but the ability to welcome people into our areas to play in some of the iconic venues of the north-east.
Given the time allowed, I will focus my remarks on trade deals and the way that the agricultural community has been treated in those trade deals—in particular, the impact of leaving the EU and the now complete absence of scrutiny of those deals. We no longer have any appropriate democratic input into how those terms of reference are agreed and how civil society can properly feed into them. When we were a member of the European Parliament, we at least had a methodology, however imperfect, for agreeing those terms of reference, bringing them forward and making sure that farmers had a seat at the table when those trade deals were being agreed. Given how the Australian and New Zealand trade deals disadvantaged sheep farmers in my constituency, had there been a meaningful vote or meaningful parliamentary consultation, there is no way that the former MP for my constituency could have voted for that deal with a clean conscience. It is to his shame that he never raised his voice in opposition to it.
I also want to touch on the issue of trade movements, referred to in the introductory speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I thank him for securing the debate and apologise for forgetting to do so earlier. When the EU brings in bans on products, there is a real risk that those goods are then immediately diverted into the UK because we do not have consistency of policy. I have heard that from manufacturers in my constituency who make furniture: they see lower-quality wood products from China coming in that were originally destined for the EU but, because of a policy shift from the EU, have then been redirected en route into the UK market, with the consistent risk of decimating jobs. Constituency MPs then have to run to Ministers and ask for exemptions and for us to catch up to Europe. We must ensure that we have consistency of approach, not just to safeguard jobs, but to grow economies and give business the impetus and confidence to invest in the long term.
This is a shorter speech than I intended to give, but I would be grateful if the Minister could come back on those two points about scrutiny and consistency of application of trade protection measures.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to debate this issue, 10 years on from the sovereign decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave a political union—that is the important message that seems to evade most people in this Chamber today. We were not part of a simple trading arrangement: under the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government of John Major signed us up to without a referendum, our sovereignty was handed away to a political union. When my parents voted to join a common market, or to stay in a common market, in the 1970s, that was about free trade; it was about co-operation and working together as neighbours. But over the years it became a political union, and our laws—the laws that we are elected to make—were overridden by a massive unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.
Our trade has to be global—
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is elected—it is a Parliament.
Andrew Rosindell
A Parliament that had no real power, as the hon. Member knows.
Our democracy and our historic constitutional rights and liberties were gradually being eroded. I want this country to be prosperous. The real prosperity in the world today does not come with a diminishing market in the continent. The global market is there for us to grab if we take that opportunity. Unfortunately, the political establishment of this country has failed in the last 10 years to grab the opportunities that being independent has given us.
Those in the civil service, those in government under Theresa May and the establishment in this country did everything they possibly could to derail Brexit. Under Theresa May’s agreement, we would have been half in and half out of the European Union. That would have been a disaster. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), myself and others voted against that deal, and gave us a Brexit that actually meant something.
The opportunities are there for Britain to take if we choose to do so. The alternative is to go back into a political union and be subjected to rules, laws, regulations, the euro—all the things that come with being in the European Union—and free movement. If the people of Iceland had the good sense to say no, then we should have the good sense to think of the long-term future of our country, retain our independence, never go back to the European Union, but maintain good relations and trade co-operation with our neighbours.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I will talk about the impact of the EU referendum on my part of the UK. In ’99, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was recognised as a region in the EU in its own right and granted objective 1 status, reflecting the fact that we were one of the poorest areas not just in the UK but in western Europe. We received over €1 billion in EU funding between 2014 and 2020. Our economy would not have grown as much as it did over the 20 years of objective 1 status without EU money, but the impact went far beyond economic growth.
To give some examples: on trains, we had a passing loop and points put into our train service, which made it much quicker and better; on buses, we set up park and ride; on cars, we had the dualling of the A30. We had an airport funded, which is now floundering. On renewables, United Downs meant our first geothermal power plant was established, while on culture, we had the Hall for Cornwall. In healthcare we had dental and medical schools; we have a combined university campus in Cornwall for the first time. The impacts were huge, and we lost a great deal because of the referendum. Almost everywhere people go in Cornwall, they can see a distinctive—but far too small—blue sign signifying that a building or something else was funded by the EU. That was transformational for us.
In 2016, the leave campaign promised that Cornwall and the UK as a whole would not be worse off. That promise has fallen short. We did get shared prosperity funding from the Government afterwards and, along with the other Cornish Labour MPs, I helped to secure the Kernow industrial growth fund for economic growth, but there is a gap: because of that funding, other Government support dwindled. We are now looking forward to a devolution deal, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, to make sure that some of that capacity and growth is restored.
The impact on our rural communities has been significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out: particularly on our fishers, who were sold out by the leave campaign, and on our farmers, who had a rocky and uncertain road out of the common agricultural policy and the unhelpful trade deals that we had to deal with. Fortunately, we now have a new land use strategy and the environmental land management deal, and we are working our way out of that. On exports, this Government are looking at a new EU trade and veterinary deal as well.
James Naish
I think we need to be really explicit about the impact on farmers. It costs £200 for health certificates on each consignment with physical checks on dairy, fish and red meat. My hon. Friend does a huge amount of work on behalf of her constituents who are farmers, but does she agree that that £200 figure should not be forgotten in debates like this? It is a significant burden on our farmers.
Jayne Kirkham
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I was rushing through due to lack of time. The impact on farmers has been huge in so many ways, particularly with exports and imports. It is really important that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement takes that into account. We are lucky in that we are hoping for a fast outcome on that agreement, to try to mend some of the terrible damage that has been done to our food sector.
To conclude, perhaps the most pernicious aspect—maybe even more than the financial trauma—was the way that the Brexit vote split us as a society and hardened and coarsened our discourse. Families fell out. We are still polarised, quick to anger and less tolerant. Politicians and the media—all of us, really—had a part to play in that, and that is taking even longer to fix.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. To try to fit everybody in, we are going to have to drop the time limit to two and a half minutes. I call Clive Jones.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.
The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, backed by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), continues to burden the UK economy. Back in 2016 he, Boris Johnson and others told us that Brexit would lead to a stronger and more prosperous economy. Today, we are confronting the reality that those promises were misleading, with no substance behind them.
The botched Brexit deal has cost the Treasury billions of pounds in revenue, held back British business and left our young people without the opportunities they need to begin their working lives and careers. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, Britain’s GDP is 6% smaller as a result of Brexit—a disaster for families across the country.
In my Wokingham constituency, I have heard from businesses that once exported successfully to the EU but, since Brexit, have seen their profits reduced. It is small and medium-sized businesses that have suffered as a result of Brexit. The botched Brexit deal has created almost 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork for British businesses since we left the EU, enough to wrap around the Earth nearly 15 times. That is certainly not the freedom from bureaucracy that the hon. Member for Clacton, Boris Johnson and others promised.
I know from speaking to businesses in Wokingham that they are eager to grow again and to rebuild partnerships with European businesses. That is why the Government should listen to the Liberal Democrats’ call for a growth and defence partnership with Europe. Such a partnership would cut trade barriers, reduce red tape and help businesses to grow. It would boost jobs and incomes while giving the Government more money to tackle the costs of living, strengthen the armed forces, and invest in our NHS workforce and hospitals. It might even help to fund a new Royal Berkshire hospital to serve my constituency.
Beyond the economic benefits, a new partnership with the EU would bring much-needed stability and security. Trump has proved himself to be an unreliable and erratic partner on the global stage, while Putin has shown no signs of halting his expansion plans in Europe. Now is the time for the Government to show ambition and to rebuild security ties with our dependable European allies.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, in the first week of a new term. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate.
Brexit has been an unmitigated failure: our economy is smaller, thousands of UK businesses have stopped exporting to the EU altogether and our position in the world has been diminished. I put on the record my thanks to the former Prime Minister and Chancellor for all the work that they did on a repair job in the first two years of this Government, but, in the brief time that I have today, I will focus on what comes next.
I am pleased to see the Minister in Westminster Hall today and I welcome him to his role. I will talk specifically today about the importance of a youth mobility deal, because a visa-based scheme for 18 to 30-year-olds to allow them to travel freely between the United Kingdom and the European Union is something I have advocated for since my first few weeks in this place, and publicly since April 2025. The Government are in active negotiations with the EU about a youth mobility scheme as we speak. The prospect of such a deal has proven popular with the public; every poll on the subject consistently shows that there is broad support for a youth mobility deal.
However, this is a moment to be courageous and ambitious, because we read in the media that there is a live debate about the number of people who will be subject to a youth mobility scheme—100,000, or slightly more than 100,000. In a context where net migration to the United Kingdom has fallen from a record high of over 800,000 to less than 200,000, I hope and believe that that should give Ministers the space and the confidence to agree an ambitious youth mobility deal.
This negotiation is also a test of our Government’s ability to secure an agreement. Lots of pro-Europeans engaging with this subject and watching this debate want to see our Government engage in something that meaningfully moves our relationship with Europe forward. Achieving a youth mobility deal can be a test of that.
I admire the Prime Minister’s courage in saying that he is going to walk towards difficult issues. With respect to the European Union and the opportunity for a youth mobility deal, I think that he and the Minister can walk towards an opportunity and I hope that they can secure it this year.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairship.
Clearly, Brexit has been a disaster for Britain—the sooner we acknowledge that, the better our conversations will be, because we will then be able to move forward. It has been economically disastrous. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, it has been a slow puncture; in fact, it has been a huge slow puncture, taking 4%, 6% or 8% off our GDP, which costs every household in the country enormously in real terms. It makes us all much worse off.
In North Herefordshire, business owners have spoken about the additional barriers they face when trading with Europe and the admin created by the supposed reduction in bureaucracy. Brexit has been an economic disaster, but it is not just economic: environmentally, we are diverging from Europe, and in 28 areas of law, we now have weaker protection for our natural environment. Socially, politically and culturally, Brexit has been poisonous. It has catalysed and reinforced a toxic political debate, leading to polarisation, the proliferation of disinformation, political short-termism, and a discounting of the rights, opportunities and needs of young people in particular. The UK is now poorer, weaker and more isolated in a context in which we have a completely unreliable and unstable partner in the US President, and we have war on the eastern border of Europe with Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry, but because of time I will not.
We are also facing the climate crisis barrelling down towards us. All of these issues require stronger co-operation with our closest neighbours. In that context, more than 10 years on from this disastrous wrong turn in British politics—this monumental act of self-harm—it is time to change course. I welcome the noises that the Government have made about resetting. That is certainly a start, but we need to be honest about what we have lost. We need to recognise the importance of co-operation and working together politically as well as economically. We need to recognise that the majority of the British people think that we would be better off back in the European Union, and that is why I believe we need to set out a path to rejoin. The best future for the UK lies within Europe. With the summit coming up, I hope that the Minister will be genuinely ambitious and deep in setting out the path forward.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.
There can simply be no argument: Brexit has been one of the most disastrous decisions that the UK has made in modern times. This extraordinary moment of self-harm has irreparably damaged the British economy and society, and for what? There are longer queues at airports, bureaucracy at the ports and hundreds of thousands of boats crossing the channel every year. Let us never forget that there were no small boats before Brexit.
Ten years on, Brexit has perhaps had the greatest impact on Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) mentioned. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of the late Member for Falmouth and Camborne, Candy Atherton, Cornwall secured objective 1 status from the EU, which greatly supported our economic development according to all metrics. As was mentioned, Cornwall received over £100 million a year, which included support for the Eden Project, Newquay airport, our combined universities, superfast broadband and improvements to the A30. It was a transformational programme.
The Vote Leave campaign promised that not a penny of that funding would be lost. It said that the money we sent to Brussels would be reinvested back into Cornwall, but that promise never materialised, and we are now looking to the Government to reinstate our economic development funding in the devolution deal that the Prime Minister alluded to at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
We have lost not only our objective 1 funding, but the common-sense free trade we once had with our closest neighbours and allies. All told, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster, and the time has come to rethink and renegotiate a relationship with our nearest trading partners, our allies and friends in the European Union.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
As a rather lone voice in this debate, I do not complain that it is not going to be a balanced debate, but somebody has to make the case.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Indeed, there are a few of us, but what we are hearing is a group of aggrieved remain supporters who have never come to terms with their grief and remain ideologically committed to rejoining. To anybody who wants to have another referendum, I do not say, “Bring it on,” because that is the last thing the public want, but I say that we would win again. When it comes down to the crunch, the British public do not want to hand back control of our laws to the European Union, and all the polls show that. If we ask them in a poll, “Do you want Westminster or Brussels to control farming policy?”, or whatever policy it is, people always vote for Westminster to maintain control.
Rachel Gilmour
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall the pleasant experience we had in Odesa recently, with Russian drones almost falling on our heads. Reports from Germany suggest that the recent drone attack on Leipzig airport was indeed coming from Moscow. Does he not agree that dealing with and having a good relationship with our nearest allies is the safest route to our national security?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I totally agree. Defence is a reserved matter for member states in the European Union. The European Union does not have any troops. NATO is the forum through which we operate, and it is NATO to which we should be committed, rather than setting up a rival defence organisation in the European Union.
I will also point out the contributions. According to a table from the House of Commons Library, we were making a gross contribution of £16 billion or £17 billion a year, but, with the rebate, the net contribution was £9.4 billion in the last year of membership. Our latest contribution was £103 million. To all those people who advocate for rejoining or for the reset, where will the money come from? Will it come out of defence or welfare, or will there be more taxation to generate the extra revenue needed once we start making increased contributions to the European Union?
There is also the myth-making. There is a myth that there were no small boats until Brexit—what rubbish. The small boats started in 2018, before we left, and by 2020 there were more than 8,500 crossings. That is not due to Brexit. The Dublin regulation was useless. It was in place during those years and it was never enforced.
I will finish on the question of forecasts, which are all conjectural. They are all based on what the British economy might look like compared with a basket of other economies, including the United States, which has had a huge fiscal stimulus and an AI boom, and has more free enterprise policies. The fact is that since we left the European Union, Wolfgang Münchau, who somewhat reluctantly voted remain, has made it clear that leaving was an economic non-event. We were growing at about the same rate of France and Germany, and we still are. There has been no smashing disaster in the economy. There is a disaster in Scotland, where the SNP is campaigning against reopening the North sea and supports the high energy costs imposed by the ridiculous dash to net zero—the Government are doing that too—but the fact is that we are better off outside the EU in the long term.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate.
The impact of the 2016 EU referendum is felt particularly sharply in our fields, glasshouses and farming communities. For agriculture and horticulture, leaving the EU has fundamentally changed access to labour. The end of free movement has effectively ended the dependable flow of workers from the EU, on which many growers rely to plant, tend and harvest their crops. The result has been greater complexity and cost, and many farmers and growers cannot afford that cost.
We have replaced the common agricultural policy with the environmental land management scheme and sustainable farming incentive. I strongly support paying farmers to look after the countryside, but we must be honest about the consequences of an all-or-nothing approach. Global shocks have driven up the cost of energy, fertiliser, feed and other inputs. As a result, there are crops that are simply no longer profitable to grow. What happens then? Either farms are amalgamated into larger operations, potentially owned by distant multinational corporations, or crops simply stop being grown in the UK. Neither outcome is good for our food security. I believe that we need a mixed system that rewards farmers for producing the food we need while also supporting them to protect and improve our land.
Brexit has brought new trade barriers. Tariffs, paperwork and non-tariff barriers have disrupted what were once smooth trading relationships with our nearest market, while new trade deals bring both opportunities and uncertainties.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Which goods does the EU charge tariffs on? The hon. Member said that it charges tariffs; which goods are they on?
Ben Goldsborough
I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he was a member of the Government who signed up to the dodgy trade deal with Australia and New Zealand that sold our farmers down the river, he has single-handedly undermined the sheep and cattle industry in the UK—something he can be very proud of.
That is why I welcome the Government’s efforts to reset relations with the EU and pursue an SPS agreement, but I have one further warning to the Minister: in seeking closer alignment, we cannot lose Britain’s first-mover advantage on precision breeding. In South Norfolk, our scientists and growers are leading the way. Precision breeding is already showing enormous promise, including with sugar beet and other crops. Climate change, pests, diseases, drought and flooding are already threatening our food security. If we are serious about producing more food at home, we must allow our farmers to use every tool in the chest. We must learn from the impact of Brexit, address its consequences honestly, and build a system that backs British farmers and growers to give us the food security we need.
On a wider issue, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for many of my constituents in South Norfolk. It has led to divided families, businesses not being able to thrive as much as they want to and a tidal wave of red tape that has harmed the UK economy. I urge the Minister to explain in his wind-up remarks how Labour will push forward to remove that red tape and those barriers so that we can have a faster and more productive economy for all.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for introducing this important debate.
We were told that Brexit means Brexit, but what does that mean? We have heard a lot about sausages this morning; perhaps Brexit means breakfast—that certainly makes a lot more sense than that three-word slogan. A decade on from the EU membership referendum, we face higher costs, lower growth and less influence. Brexit has made the UK poorer, more isolated and less competitive.
The promised trade deal with the US has failed to materialise; instead, Trump has threatened the UK with crippling tariffs. The post-Brexit trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand negotiated by the previous Conservative Government delivered only marginal economic benefits, while the deal with Singapore merely rolled over the arrangements that we enjoyed prior to Brexit. As for Canada, after years of negotiations, the UK has still been unable to secure an enhanced agreement. Rather than unlocking a new era of prosperity, those deals have largely fallen short of the promises.
Since Brexit, trade with our largest market has become slower, costlier and more bureaucratic. British exporters now face customs checks and regulatory barriers that did not exist before, and goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-Brexit levels. The OBR estimates that UK trade will ultimately be around 15% lower than it would have been had we remained in the EU.
Brexit’s worst effects can and must be reduced, and that is why this Government’s efforts to rebuild our relationship with the EU matter. By pursuing closer co-operation and greater regulatory alignment where it serves our national interest, the Government are helping to make trade easier, but we need to go much further. Europe remains our biggest trading partner, and a pragmatic relationship with our closest neighbours is not an ideological choice but an economic necessity. We cannot erase the damage and costs of Brexit overnight, but we can reduce them to help British business and industry thrive.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for chairing the debate, Ms Butler, and I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing it.
If you ask the wrong questions, do not be surprised by the consequences. Brexit was about the politics of the time in the Conservative party, not about the economic future of our country. Let us remember the history and the poor deal that Lord Cameron tried to secure ahead of going to the country with this referendum.
Our country is now poorer and more fractious. Trade is more challenged, and we see queues at the border, horizons closing to our young people and increased migration levels. We have to ask the value of the deal that was struck after 2016. As a country, we are now significantly weaker on the global stage in a more unstable world where we should be taking the lead as we did in Europe. Locally, we know that the consequences are significant. Our constituents are £3,000 poorer as a result, and they are now faced with the cost of living challenge. We have to dig deep on where we go next and ask the questions that should have been asked in 2016. How can we have a stronger and safer economy? How do we have good trade? How do we best control migration, collaborate on a destabilised planet and ensure that our interactions abroad bring people here at home better job security, financial security and, of course, hope for the future?
As we move forward, yes, we need pragmatism, but we need boldness too. As the Minister enters the fray of negotiations, I ask him to look at rebuilding an economic union with Europe that will be of value to our constituents by ensuring that trade brings good-quality jobs and powers the research that drives our economy forward. On immigration, I ask him to consider the asylum and migration management strategy that Europe has adopted and look at a risk-sharing approach so that we can rebuild balance in our system to ensure that we are supporting vulnerable people in the right way instead of pointing the finger at them. That will help our communities and our country. And ultimately, our leadership will help our world.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and on the vim and vigour with which he introduced it. Ten years on, we can now see the devastating impact that the referendum had on this country—not just on our economy, but on the integrity of our democracy and political debate. Since June 2016, we have had seven Prime Ministers in a decade. We have had a Parliament that could not resolve the question in front of it, a Government who prorogued this House unlawfully to get round it and a public who have watched the whole spectacle and drawn the obvious conclusion that our political system is broken.
The Conservatives put a question to the country that they had not thought through. They lost control of the answer and then spent years arguing among themselves about what it meant while the rest of the country paid for it. Into that vacuum walked the people who benefit from it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has built an entire career on a promise he never had to deliver and now takes no responsibility for. He and others like him told the public that leaving would let us take back control of our borders. Since then, over 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats. Before the referendum, there were no small boat crossings. They created the conditions, and they now travel to Dover to be photographed pointing at the result.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The referendum was in 2016, but all the legalities of membership of the European Union, including the Dublin convention, applied until 2021. The small boat crossings were rocketing before Brexit. They have nothing to do with it.
Lisa Smart
My point is that there were no small boat crossings before the 2016 referendum. I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me on that.
British GDP is between 6% and 8% smaller than it would otherwise have been. Investment has been reduced by between 12% and 18%. Employment and productivity are each down by 3% to 4%. Estimates from the House of Commons Library, those well-known doughty remain campaigners, put the cost to the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £90 billion a year in tax revenue that is simply not there. Every Minister who stands at the Dispatch Box and says that money is not available is describing a hole that has been enlarged as a result of Brexit. That is £90 billion a year that could be used for projects across the country to support our constituents. It could be used to fund renovations to my Stepping Hill hospital, the rail services my constituents wait for every morning or cleaning up our waterways so that sewage stops being pumped into the Goyt or the Mersey.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) mentioned the nearly 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork that now sit on British firms—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. Tighter border restrictions with our European neighbours devastated our hauliers, with more than double the number of insolvencies seen between 2021 and 2025 than in the previous five years. In our food and farming sector, exports to the EU have fallen by 22% since 2018, which is close to £4 billion in lost trade.
The question for the House is, “What do we do now?” Ministers know that the relationship with Europe is the biggest lever available to them. Their response so far has been to make small adjustments around the edges of a bad deal. They have ruled out the single market and a customs union, drawing red lines around two things that would make a material difference.
On fisheries, the Government have made things worse. The EU came asking for a five-year extension to the arrangements in the 2020 trade and co-operation agreement, and this Government agreed to 12 years. That is a loss worth around £6 billion over the period at today’s prices, down not only to the previous Government but to this Labour Government. Being timid is a political choice, and it has political consequences. When mainstream parties refuse to name the cause of a problem, the field is left to those who offer easy answers and no substantive solutions.
The Lib Dems are offering something different. We want a growth and defence partnership with Europe. That would mean joining the single market and a UK-EU customs union, so that our businesses can trade again without drowning in red tape. It would mean a proper UK-EU defence pact. We currently sit outside EU decision making and outside funding streams such as the European Defence Fund and the Security Action for Europe loan programme, at the precise moment when Vladimir Putin is testing this continent’s resolve and the White House is reneging on international commitments. We want a new European security council, British participation in SAFE and a European rearmament bank to support collective rearmament. Our security does not stop at Dover, and it never has.
We are also calling for the UK to join the EU’s migration and asylum pact, so that we can return people who arrive by small boat to the first EU country they entered, and so that we can see the biometric data that tells us whether someone has already been refused asylum elsewhere. That is how we actually take back control of our borders, rather than shouting about it on a beach.
Finally, we should fix the politics that produced this. A system that hands total power to a party with a minority of the vote and then dares it to govern for everyone will keep generating exactly this kind of instability. The Liberal Democrats want proportional representation through the single transferable vote at local and general elections. We want a second Chamber with a democratic mandate. We want the big money taken out of politics. We want the Electoral Commission protected from ministerial direction and serious measures against foreign interference in our elections and referendums.
From the cost of living to our broken public services, the result of the 2016 EU referendum stands in the way of making things better, and we have to fix it. Ten years on, it is clear that it has negatively impacted the UK, and I would be really grateful if the Minister could tell us today just what it would take for this Government to move their red lines.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to him or other hon. Members that we see the legacy of the 2016 referendum, and indeed the path forward for our country, through a very different lens.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one might almost assume that the United Kingdom was a sunlit, frictionless economic Shangri-La until a single ballot paper cast us into eternal ruin. He told us, echoed by other hon. Members, that leaving the European Union uniquely crippled our economy and that our only salvation lies in surrendering sovereignty through the Government’s grandly titled EU reset, or perhaps going further.
That entire narrative collapses under the weight of hard economic reality. First, let us examine the great myth of the EU single market as an automatic engine of export growth. Ministers speak of the single market as if it were a place where magic happens, but if there was magic, the UK was firmly in the audience wondering when the rabbit would emerge from the hat. As former Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Lilley demonstrated in his Policy Exchange paper earlier this year, during our entire 28-year membership of the single market, from 1992, UK goods exports to our EU partners grew by less than 1% per year, but over that exact same period our goods exports to the 111 countries with which we traded on standard World Trade Organisation terms grew by 87%. In fact, according to the European Commission’s own single market scoreboard, the UK was the member state that benefited least from the goods single market. Rejoining that regulatory straitjacket in pursuit of export growth is the pure triumph of hope over experience.
Secondly, we must address the sheer statistical alchemy deployed by advocates of rejoining. Several speakers have brandished a non-peer-reviewed National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that claims that Brexit cost the UK up to 8% of GDP, but let us look at how the model has constructed that parallel universe. It created a statistical doppelganger proxy that was dominated by the United States and Estonia, which between them provide almost three quarters of the entire weighting for the alternative proxies—apparently—for where the UK could have been without Brexit. It assumed that, had we remained in the EU, the UK would have miraculously mirrored the American economic performance.
To attribute that divergence to Brexit requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. It requires one to pretend that there was no US artificial intelligence boom, no massive American fiscal stimulus—which was possible because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency—no transatlantic shale gas price advantage, no differing pandemic shock, and no North sea oil rundown. In fact, Germany fell 8% behind the same arbitrary index under that model, so unless German departure from the EU has passed us by unnoticed, blaming that divergence on Brexit is simply economic nonsense.
When we examine the actual data, rather than econometric fairy tales, the evidence is clear. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK economy grew by 12.2%, and by 5.3% since we formally left, outpacing the European G7 average. Since Brexit, British economic growth has averaged 1.1% per annum, compared with just 0.1% for Germany. As hon. Members have mentioned, the Office for Budget Responsibility previously assumed an implausible 15% collapse in total UK global trade openness, but as its own November 2025 briefing conceded, UK trade intensity has remained stable at around 65% of GDP and has continued to track peer economies such as France.
The single market was overwhelmingly designed for goods, but more than 80% of the UK economy is based on services. Our services exports continue to boom globally. Even the dire predictions of a mass exodus from the City of London proved dramatically overblown. Institutions such as JP Morgan, which had threatened to move thousands of jobs abroad, have instead been transferring staff back from Paris to London.
Although business investment was undeniably delayed during the post-2016 political paralysis, dragged out by those trying to overturn the referendum, fixed investment to GDP rebounded, reaching 19.6% by the end of last year.
Pete Wishart
I have been listening very carefully and patiently to the hon. Gentleman, and he refuses to accept the reality. The House of Commons Library did us a great favour by bringing together all the evidence, which clearly suggests that there has been a fall in GDP and in the performance of the UK economy since we left the European Union. Is he credibly standing there and telling this House that there have been no impacts whatsoever of our leaving the EU?
Mike Wood
If we chart it over the last two decades, particularly against German performance, on almost any economic chart we look at, it would be almost impossible to pick out the point at which the UK left the European Union. It is impossible to say from looking at those charts that our economy has grown more slowly than Germany’s, because it has not; it has grown more quickly. Our trade has not been disrupted more than Germany’s—[Interruption.] It really has not; they track almost identically across that chart.
Thirdly, where Britain is succeeding, we are doing so precisely because of our post-Brexit freedoms. The UK digital and tech flat white economy now represents about 15% of GDP—larger than the entire domestic goods sector. As the Growth Commission highlighted, our tech sector is flourishing and leading Europe in artificial intelligence, precisely because it is unburdened by Brussels’ heavy-handed Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and restrictive AI Act.
Instead of backing British enterprise, the Government are proposing to pursue unilateral dynamic alignment, shackling the 92% of British firms that do not trade with the EU to Brussels’s rulebook, surrendering our precision breeding advantages and hiking domestic carbon costs by linking our emissions trading scheme, which threaten to add up to £100 per tonne to fertiliser prices at a time when they are already crippling British farmers, while paying administrative fees to Brussels for the privilege.
That is an astonishingly one-sided bargain, a masterclass in the art of the bad deal. The lesson of the past 10 years is that national prosperity is built by businesses working across the UK, not subcontracted to the EU. The economic catastrophe prophesied in 2016 simply did not occur.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and correct speech, offering the facts. Does he not regret that, in all those years of Conservative Government after we had left the EU, we did not seize the opportunities to be more radical, to ensure that the benefits of Brexit were properly realised? Does he also repudiate John Major’s Government for bringing in the Maastricht treaty, which created political union in the first place?
Mike Wood
It is one thing to look back over the past 10 years, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I plead that I was taking GCSEs in 1992 rather than paying attention to what John Major was doing. The next Conservative Government should certainly look at how to take better advantage of the freedoms available outside the European Union, because there are many opportunities. His Majesty’s Opposition will continue to champion our regulatory freedom, to back British innovation and resist any attempt to drag this country back into the EU’s regulatory orbit.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I extend gratitude to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for providing a rich opportunity on our second day back. Much history has been discussed: two referendums and what should have been in our manifesto. I was disappointed to see colleagues from the right unwilling to enter into greater detail of the debate about Maastricht and John Major. I must confess that I suspect our constituents are slightly less interested in going through the entrails of the history. It is important to focus on the future.
I will quickly say three things about my overall position regarding the negotiations to come. I will also try to answer some of the specifics raised. Some hon. Members may wish to intervene, which they are welcome to do, but I will try to cover a little ground initially. First, I want to pay an enormous tribute to my predecessor, who did incredibly important work in resetting our relationship with the European Union. In the spirit of unity, I will resist the temptation to respond to the accusation from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) that I am providing “a masterclass in the art of the bad deal.” My predecessor faced a true masterclass of a bad deal left to him by the previous Government, and he did incredible work on a reset.
I want to be clear on three points. First, I want to go even further and faster than my predecessor. There is great urgency to address the shortcomings in our arrangements. Secondly, there are challenges facing Europe of security, defence and the economy. I discussed those challenges with my European counterparts in Austria this week. Thirdly, Britain is part of Europe. We are Europeans. European security is British security. We must be a close partner with our European friends in dealing with shared challenges.
Jim Shannon
First of all I thank the Minister, who always tries to answer our questions. In my contribution, which was specific to Northern Ireland, I asked him whether he had had an opportunity to consider the issues and the impact of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland and how it affects our trading with the United Kingdom and Europe. Also, I thank him for coming back from his honeymoon to his new position.
Mr Falconer
I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.
I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.
I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.
I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The question of scrutiny was raised by the Minister’s colleagues. In the absence of a European Scrutiny Committee, how is this stuff going to be scrutinised if he brings in direct applicability and direct effect of European laws?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot provide much comment on the structures of parliamentary scrutiny, which are obviously not a question for me, but I can confirm that if we are able to conclude the ambitious deal that I hope we will be able to in the months ahead, I will of course return to Parliament and there would be a full scrutiny process. He refers to changes in the law. That happens in this place, and I would expect proper scrutiny processes of any legislation that was required to enact the Bills in question.
I was talking about services, and I pay tribute to the musical talents in this place. It is not just the Prime Minister who knows how to play a guitar. It is a great shame for Europe and Britain that touring is not easier for British bands in Europe. I discussed those issues this week. It is a source of frustration to me that it has not been possible to make faster progress. I heard the Liberal Democrat advice to change our manifesto commitments, but I would question the political wisdom of doing so. It is a manifesto commitment for us to make progress on this issue, and we will continue to do so. There are a range of complex issues being raised by the European Union about securing the changes that we want to see. I am sure it is a sentiment shared right across the House that music should flow freely, and that the UK and Europe benefit from the closeness of those relationships.
Some questions were raised about the timing of the summit and the negotiations. Obviously, we will need to agree timing with our friends in Europe and announce it in the usual way, but I want to be clear to the House that I am ambitious to move quickly and I would like to see progress within the coming months.
There was much else upon which I could touch. I will leave the debate about the statistical doppelganger proxy method for checking whether the British economy could have grown more or less quickly than other European economies to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. All I will say is that our relationship with Europe is absolutely vital for our economy. In our constituencies, we will all have experienced businesses that are finding exports and recruitment harder; a whole range of issues have been made more difficult by the poor deal that we were left with. I would like to reassure the House that it is my intention during my time in this role to make it easier for the whole of the UK.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to sum up what has been an excellent debate with some fantastic contributions.
I secured this debate because I could not believe that in June this year, no one made any attempt to even recognise the fact that we had left the European Union 10 years ago. There was no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) down the Mall in ticker-tape processions. There was nothing in the way of celebration or even to mark the event. I found that a bit unusual, which is why I secured the debate. I am pleased that I did, because we have heard some pretty scary things today. There were two words that came out loud and clear from practically every contribution: unmitigated disaster. That is the conclusion that any sane and rational person would have to make when they look at what has happened in the 10 years since we left the European Union.
I listened carefully to my Conservative colleagues talk about the history of all this. They do not seem to be able to accept the forecasts that are clearly laid out in the House of Commons Library briefing. Maybe we have the wrong type of Brexit, the wrong type of Government, the wrong type of deal or the wrong type of House of Commons Library. I do not know what their real issue is, but they fail to accept and recognise that there has not been even a mixed response. It was quite alarming that the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who spoke for the official Opposition, could not even acknowledge that there have been difficulties over the past 10 years.
My last word to the Government is that, yes, they can make progress, and we are all keen to support them in trying to improve the relationship with the European Union, but unless they are prepared to consider rejoining the European Union, which is what the vast majority of the people of this country want, I am afraid they will not be able to make much progress. It will just be more tinkering and making slight progress at the very edges of a very clear and distinct problem.
I urge the Government to have a look at the benefits of rejoining the EU, even through some sort of examination or inquiry about what it could do. It is not good enough to just blithely say that we are not looking at it and we are sticking to our red lines, and it is not what the people of the country want. They want to be back in the European Union—a sensible place to be—and to end the unmitigated disaster that we have experienced in the last 10 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.
Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of removing the qualifying period for Disability Living Allowance for children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. It is right and fitting that I start this debate where it all began for me, with dear Mabel—a brave, kind, clever, funny four-year-old girl who lives in my constituency—and her tenacious mum Rachael. When I was first elected to Parliament, I met with Rachael, my constituent, and she shared her experience with her daughter Mabel, who sadly had been diagnosed with cancer.
Aged four, Mabel was diagnosed with Wilms’, a form of kidney cancer. After a horrifying six months, including two major operations and a tough course of chemotherapy, the family received the news that Mabel was free of cancer. Now, aged six, Mabel attends her local school, where I was fortunate enough to meet her, and is enjoying her life as a young child should. I know that the House will join me in wishing Mabel well.
Following Mabel’s diagnosis, Rachael made an application for disability living allowance, which required completing a 40-page questionnaire that asks questions such as whether the four-year-old needs help monitoring their blood oxygen levels. Disability living allowance is supposed to support families of children with disabilities and serious conditions such as cancer. It can provide a lifeline of financial support at the time when it is most needed, yet the current system requires families to wait three months for the qualifying period. Let me be clear: the financial impact of cancer does not begin after three months. It is instant.
Rachael shared with me that Mabel being diagnosed with cancer was the toughest time of her family’s lives. Despite that, she felt that they were in a more fortunate position than many of the other families on the ward. Rachael’s employer gave her six months off work as sick leave and her partner was able to work flexibly so that they could both spend time with their daughter at hospital. That time allowed Mabel to have support and care from her loved ones, and it allowed support from their family. I cannot even begin to imagine the anguish that families face with such a diagnosis—all the more when it is their child. Unfortunately, not every employer is able or willing to offer that support. That disparity should leave us asking: if we cannot be there when a child is diagnosed with cancer, what are we doing?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is debates such as this that remind us of our job as MPs. Does she agree that when a family receive a devastating diagnosis, whether that is of a terminal illness, a severe disability or an aggressive childhood cancer, the financial shock and caring responsibilities are felt immediately? In the three-month qualifying period, families can sometimes accumulate up to £5,000 in additional debt during the most agonising months of their lives, while—I say this respectfully—the Government drag their heels. Will the hon. Lady join me in pressing the Minister, in her compassionate and understanding way, to get Government to recognise that a child’s suffering does not wait 90 days to become real, and to ensure that crucial financial support is delivered from the very point of diagnosis?
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree. Too often, the financial impacts of a cancer diagnosis are forgotten. People think about the hospital visits, the sickness and the endless tablets, but a disability or serious condition such as cancer has an impact on every single part of someone’s life. Following a diagnosis, families immediately have to deal with the financial impact. It is a sad fact of life that bills do not care whether a child has cancer; they will still be due.
But we can care. Cross-party, we can care. We can unite and do the right thing. Families with children with a disability or serious condition have to wait seven months on average before receiving a single disability living allowance payment. That is months and months of rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills and council tax, and it is weeks and weeks of food shopping. It is compounded by the fact that household income drops by an average of £6,000 per year. For one in three, that can reach over £10,000. Sadly, it gets even worse: the delay in receiving DLA means that a parent’s ability to claim any carer’s allowance as an additional or an alternative has a further impact on the financial strain. It is also important to note that parents in work are unable to apply for universal credit, and that that cuts out other potential streams of support.
All this leaves parents with an impossible choice, a cruel choice that no parent should have to make: do they leave their child alone in hospital to face this battle by themselves, or do they not go to work? Do they skip bills? Do they run the risk of losing their home? Do they not eat? Do they turn the heating off? This is the reality. These are decisions that families should never have to make, yet they happen daily for families up and down this country.
During my meeting with Rachael, she told me about a young boy of just six years old who was also on the ward. His parents were left with no option but to carry on working. As the nurses were unable to provide round-the-clock care, Rachael helped him to use the toilet, helped to dress him and helped him to eat. It is heartbreaking to think of the many children who have no one beside them—not just for the children, but for the mothers and fathers being left with no choice. I missed my son’s first day back at school today and have cried about it, but that is nothing in comparison with having to leave a child who is suffering from cancer in a hospital bed. Let me be clear: DLA is not designed to act as a source of income. It is there to help with the extra costs of looking after a child with a health condition.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her incredibly powerful speech. She is right that this is not a necessity; it can be addressed. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions needs to ensure that parents get support from day one so that they can address the increased financial costs that they face from the beginning of a diagnosis, and the real need for parents to be present to support their child?
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree. Cancer is actually one of the clearest diagnoses that someone can get from day one.
Cancer does not wait, yet families have to. The three-month qualifying period does not reflect the realities that families face. In Mabel’s case, the family were informed that they would not qualify for any support, as Mabel’s condition had not lasted for more than six months. In other words, she had not had cancer for long enough. That is despite her having undergone multiple operations and chemotherapy; to this day, she must still attend regular hospital appointments. It is my understanding that the qualifying period is meant to establish that a health condition is long-standing in nature, but with a diagnosis of cancer surely support should be given from the outset.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is a strong case for greater flexibility in rapidly diagnosed cases where a clinician has already identified a severe, serious and long-lasting condition, and that in such cases a qualifying period can be unnecessary, bureaucratic and indeed insensitive?
Michelle Welsh
Absolutely. The bureaucratic system is failing families, but these issues could easily be resolved if medical evidence could be used instead of the qualifying period. I urge the Minister to look at ways in which medical evidence and research can be used in DLA to make the system better for those who rely on it. There are already provisions that allow the use of medical evidence to bypass the qualifying period, such as the special rules cases where someone is approaching the end of life. The qualifying period is outdated and does not reflect the complexities of lifelong conditions. I am aware that the Government do not know the cost of removing the qualifying period, but I do not think that any cost is worth more than parents’ ability to be there for their child when they have cancer.
As it stands, we cannot cure childhood cancer. We cannot spare families the fear, the sleepless nights or the heartbreak of watching a child undergo surgery and chemotherapy. But we can ensure that when the worst happens, the Government stand beside them rather than placing further barriers in their way. Families should not have to prove their desperation for three months before receiving support. They should not have to navigate mountains of paperwork while sitting beside a hospital bed. They should never be forced to choose between earning a wage and being there for their child.
Mabel’s story is one of hope. Today, she is back at school, enjoying the childhood that every parent wishes for their son or daughter. But her family’s experience has exposed a system that is failing too many in this country. The question before us is a simple one: when a child is diagnosed with cancer or another serious condition, do we respond with bureaucracy or with compassion? I believe we should choose compassion. I therefore urge the Minister to work with families, clinicians and charities to remove the three-month qualifying period and replace it with a system that recognises medical evidence at the outset. Let us ensure that no parent is forced to leave a child alone on a hospital ward because they cannot afford to be there. Let us build a system worthy of the families who rely on it—and let us act now, because cancer does not wait.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Lilian Greenwood)
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate. She has made a particularly valuable, thoughtful and passionate contribution this morning, and I join her in wishing Mabel, her mum Rachael and their whole family well.
My hon. Friend called this debate to discuss the qualifying period for disability living allowance for children. As we have heard, DLA contributes to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health condition. For some, it can provide a total of just over £10,000 a year. It is usually paid to the child’s parent or guardian; it can help with the overall family finances and can be used as they see fit to meet their needs. It continues to be paid in full to children and young people under the age of 18 when they are in hospital.
DLA is available if a child’s condition or illness is both of a long-term nature and one that gives rise to care or mobility needs. Payment begins once the three-month qualifying period has been satisfied. That helps to establish that the disability and resulting needs are of the long-standing nature for which this benefit is designed to offer support. The qualifying period provides a sensible division between short and long-term disability, but, importantly, it does not begin with the date of the claim; it starts with the beginning of the need for care and/or mobility that makes the child eligible for DLA. That period can start before the date of claim. The question as to when the need started will be taken into account by decision makers, meaning that consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been partly or fully completed prior to the date of claim.
Jim Shannon
If I have correctly understood what the Minister is saying, if a consultant, GP or other doctor sent a letter confirming that the condition started way before the application was made, that would be the qualifying period, and that would be done by a medical person. Am I reading it right?
Lilian Greenwood
It starts with the issue of need. The point at which the child became eligible for disability living allowance marks the start of the qualifying period, even if that precedes the point at which parents make a claim. Understandably, when parents are in very difficult circumstances, their first thought is probably not about applying for disability living allowance. For children who are severely disabled at birth, the qualifying period can start at birth.
The date of claim is usually the date the request for a claim pack is received. Provided that the customer returns the claim form within six weeks, the date of claim will be treated as the date that the claim form was requested. The Secretary of State also has the discretion to extend that period beyond six weeks if the delay is considered reasonable. In the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest has described, we can understand how those issues can arise.
If a child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, special rules are rightly in place. Those claims are always fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component will be paid from the date of the claim. My officials are currently exploring options to enhance bereavement support for parents through the social security system, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders as that work develops.
Given that this debate stems from concerns about how quickly families get the support they need, it is worth highlighting that we have recently made significant improvements to waiting times for new child DLA claims. People are not waiting nearly as long as they did for their claim to be processed. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need to address long waits.
Rachael Maskell
In the light of the fact that we are moving into a new era of a can-do Government, will the Minister look, together with clinicians, at the opportunity and benefit of delivering DLA from day one, and then bring the evidence back to the House?
Lilian Greenwood
I will perhaps come later in my speech to what the Government are planning to do.
I am pleased to tell colleagues that between October 2024 and March 2025, the Department recruited and redeployed in excess of 100 case managers to improve clearance times for child DLA new claims. Between 1 August 2025 and 31 March this year, the Department cleared around 185,900 child DLA new claims, of which 68.3% were cleared within 45 working days. In that time, the percentage of claims cleared within these planned timescales rose from 4.7% to 90.7%. I hope that colleagues will recognise that that is a significant and necessary improvement.
The social security system exists to provide opportunity and security. It is there to help people to navigate the difficult circumstances that any of us can find ourselves in. There can, of course, be few circumstances more exceptionally difficult than those faced by seriously ill children and their parents. Along with the emotional strain, parents can understandably experience a significant impact upon work and household income, as well as facing extra costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest very ably set out. It is understandable that many parents in this situation are likely to need additional support through the social security system.
It is worth reiterating that beyond the support that DLA provides in and of itself, it can also passport to a range of additional support. That includes premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap. That is providing comprehensive help for families. For those who qualify, financial support is available through universal credit, including for those who are in work but on lower incomes. If needed, that support can be available on day one through an advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts such as child element, disabled child addition, carer element or housing costs are added as appropriate. Although universal credit is means tested and therefore not available to households that are better off financially, it is there as a safety net should those financial circumstances change.
The social security system will always be a cornerstone of our support for unpaid carers and parents of disabled children, but it is not the only way we can help. Rightly, this is something that we have been thinking about across Government. Indeed, the Government have recognised precisely the issues that have been raised by both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I am sure they are aware, only yesterday the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade closed its “Make Work Pay” consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children. That included seeking views on a possible new statutory entitlement to leave and pay for parents of seriously ill children, which is often referred to as Hugh’s law. That is in recognition of the campaigning undertaken by the family of Hugh Menai-Davis, who very sadly died aged six from cancer in 2021 but left this important legacy. I know that my colleagues will look carefully at the submissions to that consultation and will respond to it in the coming months, and I am sure that my hon. Friends present will look to colleagues in the Department and the work that they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest rightly highlighted the importance of parents being able to support their children at these incredibly distressing times. In April last year, the Government introduced a new element of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for parents of babies in neonatal care to ensure that they have appropriate support during that time. The national cancer plan for England was published in February and was warmly received, not least for its introduction of a children and young people’s travel fund, backed by £10 million, and its recognition of the specialist approach that is needed for cancer in children and young people. Of course, our goal across Government remains to relentlessly work towards improving outcomes and experiences for children and young people with serious illnesses and supporting their families. I give that commitment to my colleagues today.
Caring for a child who is seriously ill must be one of the most worrying and stressful situations that a parent can experience, which is why I am so glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Although there are no current plans to remove the three-month qualifying period from disability living allowance for children, my Department is already doing a significant amount of work and offering significant support. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to search for the right levers across Government to further strengthen support for parents in these terrible circumstances, and that we will always approach these issues with compassion. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important and sensitive subject and all Members who have contributed.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities.
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I am extremely worried about the widening gap in opportunity, social mobility and economic growth between rural and urban areas. Rural areas are being held back and the futures of rural children are being limited by public services that are underfunded and overstretched, lamentably slow digital connectivity, the lack of public transport, and urban-centric perceptions based on misunderstandings about the nature of rural life.
The last local government finance settlement laid bare that neglect in financial terms. It was a stark admission from this Government that their plan is to strip funding from rural areas to improve services in urban ones. The Rural Services Network has calculated that urban councils will receive 32% more funding per head than rural councils next year. Meanwhile, rural residents pay on average 17% more council tax per head than urban residents, out of lower than average wages, to plug the gap, yet the cost of delivery means that they receive a poorer public service.
For Shropshire council, the funding situation is particularly grave, following 16 years of catastrophic management by Shropshire’s Conservatives. When the Lib Dem administration took over in May 2025, Shropshire was in the most difficult financial position of any council in England. The recent Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report on the huge challenge in Shropshire reveals the details of the Conservatives’ poor management: unrealistic budgets and constant overspends that burned through all the remaining reserves; an obsession with unaffordable vanity projects, such as the purchase of Shrewsbury’s shopping centres and millions spent on an unaffordable road; a sloppy workforce restructure in 2024-25, which drove out the talented managers needed to transform the financial situation; and the “legacy impact” of five years of consecutive council tax freezes. All that was left as a parting gift for the new administration to pick up. The report describes the direction of the council under its recently appointed new chief executive and four-to-five-year improvement plan as a “positive step”, and a peer review by the LGA praised the “significant strides” made so far, but the financial position remains perilous and the challenge to restructure the council is huge.
Eighty per cent of Shropshire council’s budget is spent on social care, an issue on which the Liberal Democrats have long called for urgent action. The cost of delivering social care in a rural area with the demographics of North Shropshire, where 25% of the population is aged over 65, means that the pressure is only set to rise. Adult social care spending has already been rising by about 5.8% a year, more than could have been generated by council tax increases, because people are living longer, needs are becoming more complex, and workforce costs are rising, with care providers consequently charging more.
Demand for education, health and care plans has risen even faster. Shropshire now has 3,016 active EHCPs, a 21% increase in one year compared with national growth of 11%. The number of school-aged children with EHCPs has increased by 78% since before the pandemic. That puts more pressure on specialist education, school transport and family support. Last year, the council put up council tax by 8.99%. Although that brought in a massive £21 million a year, it covered only about a third of the extra cost from demand and inflation alone.
Amid that financial turmoil, the Government have cut funding per head in Shropshire. It is projected to fall well below 90% of 2024 funding by 2028, while the national average is set to rise to around 118%. The exceptional financial support provided to balance the books bears interest and must be paid back; it worsens prospects for the future, and for a considerable time. Under the Government’s new devolution plans, there is a risk that the gap between mayoral and non-mayoral authorities could increase further.
During the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I asked him about the importance of power and resourcing being made available to all authorities, not just those that have formed a combined authority or have a mayor. His answer was in some ways encouraging, but in other ways it bothered me. He said that when Shropshire council could
“stand on its own two feet”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 49.]
it would be able to access devolution, but the Government’s own three-year financial settlement is forcing austerity on rural areas, making the achievement of self-sufficiency far less likely.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I am sure that the issues in Shropshire that the hon. Lady mentions are the same as those that we in Cornwall have experienced. Does she agree that the move to a mayoral share of income tax is not a detriment to non-mayoral areas like ours but an opportunity to reset the model? We have seen integrated settlements and money being thrown at mayoral regions, but this is an opportunity to turn the taps off for those regions and turn them back on for areas like ours that have not proceeded with a mayor.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would need to see the detail of that proposal and what it would mean. Shropshire is already a unitary authority and is essentially at the bottom of the list for a devolution plan, so that seems too far off. There seems to be no prospect of stabilising the financial situation until there is a firm plan to ensure that the powers needed to turn the area around, and the resources to go with them, are firmly in place. We urgently need clarity on that.
The hardship and austerity in rural areas has come about largely as a result of the removal of remoteness as a factor when calculating what it costs for a rural authority to deliver services across a vast area. The County Councils Network estimates that that has removed £300 million from its members’ budgets—an amount that the Government expect to be made up by increased council tax.
Shropshire council has been squeezed at both ends—first by years of Conservative maladministration, and then by Labour cutting its funding, despite the obvious need —and it is far from alone. Rather than tackling the problem head on, the Government have underfunded rural councils, which has perpetuated rural deprivation. That is particularly acute where people lack access to services, and it is hidden, unlike urban deprivation.
While door-knocking in my constituency, I met a delightful elderly gentleman living in a small cottage, and I was astonished to also meet his grandson, who was apparently living in his shed in the garden because he was unable to find anywhere else to live. Such cases go unnoticed in homelessness statistics, because families and communities find their own solutions to wrap around those individuals, but no one thinks a shed is appropriate accommodation for that young man. He should not have been allowed to fall through the net.
A lack of funds for local transport perpetuates isolation and leads to a vicious cycle, stunting economic growth and creating further challenges for the council’s provision of services such as social care. When members of the Casey commission came to Shropshire to talk about the challenges of delivering social care in a rural area, they were astonished by the notion that carers must have a car because there is no transport in the evening or on a Sunday.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of local transport and publicly provided services. We all agree with him, but Shropshire’s bus allocation has been cut despite the fact that it has lost more bus miles than anywhere else. Revenue funding is due to drop £175,000 in 2027-28. The Secretary of State for Transport, in an answer to me about step-free access at Whitchurch station, implied that the funds will be spent where the people are, not where the need is. She said:
“When we are investing in the accessibility of stations in the future, we need to get maximum benefit for the travelling public.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1059.]
Previously, that has meant that the funds go to the most densely populated areas, not to those where there are no real alternative forms of transport.
The patchy public transport network across North Shropshire means that it is almost impossible for most residents to manage without a car, and that brings further associated costs. Those who cannot access a car, whether they are young or old, become isolated and unable to access opportunities, education and services.
Similar patterns of deprivation are reinforced through Government funding for education in rural areas, even though they often already struggle with teacher recruitment and retention. Schools in North Shropshire received an average of £6,460 a head last year, compared with a national average of about £7,910, but outcomes at GCSE and key stage 4 are consistently lower than the national average, and indeed the west midlands average. How can the Government justify lower funding when the outcomes are already lower? Surely every child deserves the opportunities provided by a properly funded education.
That applies to capital spending in education too. One shocking example in my constituency is a primary school in one of the most rural parishes that still has outside toilets, in their original Victorian red-brick building. A lady told me during my summer tour this year that her granddaughter was too afraid to use the toilets because they are full of spiders and had an accident at school as a result. That is unacceptable. That is the kind of thing that people remember when they are 50 if it happened to them when they were seven at school.
Young people in rural areas are having their horizons limited as a direct result of Government policy. That needs to change, urgently. In what way are the Government tackling inequality if rural and coastal areas are persistently underfunded, despite their worse outcomes? My constituents rightly perceive an entirely broken system in which every year they pay more and receive less. That is obviously unfair and is opening the door wide to populists and extremists who exploit the situation with divisive messages to divide our community and simple but unworkable solutions.
The new Prime Minister has given us all hope by promising growth in every postcode. He will fail in rural areas if he does not address the obvious unfairness that Government policy combined with the pressures of ever-increasing demand for social care are delivering. Proper devolution will help rural councils tailor public services to the areas that they serve, but there must be acknowledgement of the need for a fair allocation of resources to go with those theoretical powers. I hope the Minister can provide details in his response.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Like her, I am passionate about local government. I find myself in Cornwall corner here today, but I am proud to be a Member from Norfolk. I stood for Norfolk county council way back in 2009 and lost in a bad year for my party. I stood again in 2013 and lost by a single vote, though I was delighted to be elected in a by-election six weeks later. I served on the county council for 13 years and only resigned when I was elected as an MP. It gave me a real understanding of the complexity and difficulty involved in delivering services across a wide geographical area such as Norfolk.
The London borough of Islington is the smallest upper-tier authority in the country, with statistics not dissimilar to other urban upper-tier councils. It has a population of about 223,000 people, covers less than 6 square miles and has a population density of 15,000 people per square kilometre. By contrast, Norfolk, where my constituency is located, is home to 940,000 people—nearly four times as many—but covers more than 2,000 square miles and has a population density of 175 people per square kilometre.
On top of that, the median age in Islington is 33, while in Norfolk it is 10 years higher. That is because—I am slightly in danger here—Norfolk is of course the most beautiful county in the country and many people rightly choose to retire there. However, that puts an additional strain on public services, and it means that the proportion of the population who are of working age and contributing tax is lower. When that is combined with years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire mentioned, rural residents inevitably pay more for services out of lower than average wages. As is the case for several rural upper-tier authorities, Norfolk faces higher costs to provide services across its dispersed population.
This disparity causes many challenges and weakens our potential for economic growth, and that is the key point I want to get across to the Minister. Rural upper-tier authorities often do not have the funds available to invest in the services that would drive economic growth. There is limited investment available, for example, for rural infrastructure, transport, housing, skills and broadband.
If the Government want to see rural communities contribute more to national economic growth in every postcode, as I believe they do, they need to recognise that funding local councils would be a good place to start. I therefore ask the Minister to consider three particular measures. First, future local government settlements need to include much stronger and more transparent rural sparsity components, taking account of not just population but road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities a council has to serve.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he is absolutely right about road mileage. Devon has to maintain over 8,000 miles of road, which is the most of any upper-tier authority in the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that partitioning Exeter off from the rest of Devon—from the rural Devon hinterland—will strip away the tax base from Devon county council, meaning it will be unable to provide alternative services that would otherwise power growth?
Terry Jermy
I understand the Devon road network, which is similar to Norfolk’s—Norfolk and Devon’s councils were paired—and there are obvious challenges with it. I am sure the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s point about local government reorganisation, but I will not comment on it. I can barely understand Norfolk’s proposals, let alone Devon’s.
As I was saying, road mileage, travel times, population age and the number of communities that a council serves are all crucial. There are 72 villages and three market towns in my constituency; they are all different, with unique challenges but also unique opportunities.
Secondly, the Government need to do more around the special educational needs and disabilities crisis. I appreciate that SEND is somewhat outside the Minister’s brief, but it is a crucial issue for councils like Norfolk’s that are trying to meet the growing cost of SEND while delivering other services.
Thirdly—this is more Norfolk-specific—there needs to be sufficient funding for the reorganisation of Norfolk’s local government structures. The objective should be to ensure that the money spent on creating new authorities does not come at the expense of the services that existing authorities currently provide. I am a huge supporter of devolution and local government reorganisation in Norfolk, but it is expensive and time-consuming and, frankly, councils already have enough to worry about at the moment.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Barker, after a bit of a break since the last time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for setting out so well the funding challenges facing upper-tier councils. She quite correctly articulated the challenges in relation to special educational needs provision, to which I could add home-to-school transport and, in the case of Oxfordshire, a population that is not just ageing but growing. Social care accounted for 52% of Oxfordshire county council’s budget in 2024-25.
I want to focus my remarks on perhaps the most visible public service that councils provide, which is highways. For the current financial year, Oxfordshire’s Government allocation for highway maintenance is £33.5 million. This funding must maintain all highway assets in Oxfordshire, including 3,009 miles of carriageway, nearly 2,000 miles of footways and cycleways, 3,500 bridges and public right-of-way structures, 168,000 drainage assets and 124,000 electrical assets, such as street lighting, traffic signals and safety infrastructure.
Oxfordshire county council was graded “Green” in the spend category of the Department for Transport’s recent exercise in respect of the Government’s local road maintenance ratings. That means the council invests “significantly” in maintaining its roads and goes beyond what the Government funds. Independent modelling shows that in Oxfordshire around £50 million per year is needed simply to maintain the network in its current condition, which means the Government funding falls short by around £16 million per year. Ideally, the county council would want to go even further and improve the condition of the roads rather than just maintaining them in a steady state; the amount of funds needed would then be even higher, at £60 million per year.
Oxfordshire consistently spends significantly more than it receives from the Government for highway maintenance, but it is still a long way off the amount required. The council estimates that there is a maintenance funding backlog of over £700 million across the county’s highway network, part of which is to do with the previous Conservative administration and its stated policy of managed decline. The situation will only worsen with prolonged underfunding from central Government.
This is a national issue. There are Members present from throughout the country, as we see whenever we discuss the subject of road surfaces. Without sustained funding, local authorities remain locked into a reactive cycle, whereby potholes re-emerge faster than they can be eliminated. Despite such challenges, Oxfordshire county council is trying to do things differently and get on to a proactive and preventive footing in relation to highways maintenance. It has significantly improved its programme of gully clearance and delivered the largest programme of surface dressing in at least 20 years, investing £14.5 million and treating around 2 million square metres of carriageway to prevent potholes from forming in the first place.
In the past year alone, the council repaired more than 57,000 defects, including 37,000 potholes. It is spending £8 million this calendar year on a new surface dressing programme to tackle long-term road maintenance issues and prevent the formation of potholes. Between April and June, 87 roads across the county were treated, covering more than 1 million square metres of carriageway across 62 towns and villages in Oxfordshire.
Amid these challenges, the changes to Government funding formulae will mean a cut to Oxfordshire county council’s budget of £24.1 million over three years, further undermining its ability to do more preventive work. If the Government continue to make unwise decisions, the council is, like so many others, at risk of seeing a vicious spiral of cuts and deterioration to highways and wider services.
It is important that we do not pit different parts of the country with different geographies and demographics against one another. Every part of the country has a need in one form or another. Of course, our new Prime Minister has said so himself with the idea of
“good growth in every postcode.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]
The Government have certainly talked about that a lot in respect of Oxfordshire, with the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor being so pivotal to scientific research and to accommodating housing targets.
A new funding formula is needed that clearly cannot be based on the number of people alone. There are different challenges in urban and rural areas and, indeed, in those that fall between the two, as much of my constituency does. There remains a question of how we can work together to properly design, build and proactively maintain our roads and highways. Individual councils acting alone cannot hope to solve that problem by doing their own thing in isolation.
Oxfordshire county council will soon cease to exist, thanks to the local government reorganisation. The question remains: what of the future? I conclude by emphasising that the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor aspirations will certainly not be achieved if our councils are starved of funding and our highways further deteriorate.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras —it is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate.
I want to focus on SEND and home-to-school transport. On SEND, Cornwall is the 11th lowest funded of 151 local authorities, receiving less than half the per pupil funding of Kensington and Chelsea. Over the last eight years, the number of our pupils with an EHCP has almost doubled, but the delays in issuing EHCPs are far longer than average. In Cornwall, two thirds of those waiting for an EHCP wait for more than 20 weeks, compared with about 50% in England, meaning more stress and uncertainty for Cornish children and their parents.
In a very large, long and remote coastal region, the additional costs of transport show up persistently in every aspect of Cornish life. Cornwall council’s expenditure on home-to-school transport has increased by nearly 300% over the past seven years—a far steeper rise than for our urban counterparts. When it comes to funding more broadly, being a coastal community with some of the UK’s finest beaches is actually a double-edged sword; in fact, it could be argued that we are damned by our natural beauty. Significant in-migration by wealthy English retirees not only places additional pressures on healthcare and our housing market but masks the true extent of deprivation in Treasury funding models.
In my constituency, the average weekly wages in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle are nearly £100 less than the national average, and child poverty is currently at 35%. We were very thankful that the costs of being remote and coastal were recognised in the local government funding settlement for adult social care, but the cost pressures for home-to-school transport were not reflected. I respectfully say to the Minister that a principle cannot be half applied.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is making an important and fundamental point: everything costs more when it is spread out. For example, bin collections cost a huge amount more for unitary authorities. Home-to-school transport is not just for children with SEND but for children who cannot catch the bus to school because there is no bus. Everything costs a vastly significant amount more than when people just live down the road. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is really important that that is reflected in Government funding formulae, because it is crippling our councils?
Perran Moon
I do agree with the hon. Lady. I cannot believe that in the 21st century it is beyond the wit of man or woman to calculate the major costs that affect our rural and remote coastal areas compared with the costs for our urban counterparts. We are not trying to deprive the services available in urban areas; it is about raising the level of services for remote coastal and rural communities to the same standard.
That brings me back to my central point. Despite the rising costs and demands, Cornwall is being asked to do far more with far less, which is why we need a comprehensive, non-mayoral, Cornwall-only devolution deal that allows us to overcome some of the challenges of life in the Duchy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for setting the scene incredibly well. It is good to see another supreme example of her fighting for her constituents, as she always does.
As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I am acutely aware of the challenges that face those in our rural communities. I know the Minister is not responsible for that, but I am here to support the hon. Lady as she puts forward the case on behalf of her constituents, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is nice to see him back in his position again—he was a Minister before and then an active Back Bencher, and he is back again as a Minister. Well done to him for all his efforts.
There are growing concerns about the level of support being provided to upper-tier rural authorities in England. England’s largest councils are expected to receive just 2p in Government funding for every £1 of their rising costs over the next three years. This comes as funding is increasingly being directed towards urban areas, leaving local rural authorities facing an estimated £11 billion funding gap. The consequences could be significant, with rural councils in particular likely to have to reduce and make cuts to everyday services such as libraries and community social care. Other hon. Members have spoken about those issues, as will others after me.
Analysis by the County Councils Network shows that county and large rural councils will face an additional £7 billion a year in service costs by 2029. This follows its warning at the beginning of last year that Government cuts are being severely felt in rural areas, with around four in five rural local authorities stating that they felt they were in a worse position following the autumn Budget and the local government finance settlement. The network has called for a reinstatement of “remoteness” in the local government funding formula. There is perhaps a case to be made—as the hon. Member for North Shropshire did exceptionally well—that remoteness must be a priority and part of the scoring card when it comes to funding, to properly recognise that the delivery of services across sparsely populated areas costs considerably more, and the impact on rural communities.
As always, I give a Northern Ireland perspective, not because the Minister has any answering to do for it, because he does not, but to give examples of where some of what the hon. Lady and others have said relates to the situation back home in Northern Ireland. While Northern Ireland does not have a two-tier local government system—our 11 councils are single-tier authorities—our rural councils face many of the same challenges. One is that our councils play a much wider role than simply delivering standard local services. That is why it is of great concern that local community initiatives in rural areas are increasingly vulnerable to having their funding withdrawn.
Some of the things that affect us in Northern Ireland also affect the hon. Lady’s constituency here on the mainland. In March, concerns were raised about the potential closure of a youth forum in the Londonderry area due to funding difficulties. The forum highlighted that rural isolation and social exclusion are precisely the types of issues that these services are trying to address—the very things that the hon. Lady and others have specifically requested.
I was elected as MP for my constituency of Strangford in 2010, and in 2015 the Ards and North Down rural partnership was established to act as the administrative and financial lead for the Northern Ireland rural development programme, an excellent programme that did great work in my constituency and indeed across the whole of Northern Ireland. The programme was completed in 2022, but that work must not be allowed to stop there. We must build on that success with sustained investment.
The Ards and North Down rural partnership is still working and doing good things, and the Government back home have recognised that rural isolation and rural needs are specific. The Ards and North Down rural partnership demonstrates the difference that targeted investment can make in our rural communities, from improving the local play parks, green spaces and the harbour areas, to supporting community centres.
Does the Minister agree that equality does not always mean treating every area the same, and that rural areas should receive funding that recognises the additional cost of delivering services across the countryside and in rural communities? In the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—which we all welcome, by the way; it would be churlish for anyone not to welcome it—he set a positive scene and laid out his vision for the United Kingdom. He mentioned hope, which was one of the words that I took from his statement—I was there for his statement but not for all the answers to Members, because there were other things to do. We must ensure that policies are rural-proofed. My real fear is that we are not doing so and that the losers are the most vulnerable and isolated communities. Economies of scale and isolation issues must be weighted when balancing the books.
I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to address this issue for each rural area, and thank him for his response to the debate. How will the Government deliver support for upper-tier local authorities? That is the question the hon. Lady put forward, and it is the one I am asking as well.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate, which is important and relevant to me.
I will probably shorten my speech a little, as the Minister is getting a double dose of Cornwall this afternoon—I apologise for that. We underwent major local government consolidation early in Cornwall. We became a unitary, from a county council and six districts, in 2009. We are now the third largest unitary in the country by population and the fourth largest by area, but the 12th least densely populated of the 62. That creates quite unique opportunities, but also challenges.
I want to talk a bit about third-tier councils, because the establishment of our large unitary coincided with austerity. The council withdrew from quite a lot of services—all but the most statutory, really. That meant that the third-tier town and parish councils stepped up and took the reins, preventing the sell-off and closure of all sorts of things, such as green spaces, toilets, libraries and leisure centres—so much of the infrastructure that made our town special. It is great having services run by the people who live there and use them, but there are issues that need sorting out.
When third-tier councillors’ councils grow, they still get no pay or expenses. We also have conduct issues clogging up the desks of upper-tier council monitoring officers, who do not have the teeth to sort them out. Precepts in towns have grown significantly larger than in rural parishes. People on one side of a road might be paying £30 for their precept, while those on the other side are paying for everything in the town, so their precept could be £400-plus a year, and obviously those parish residents will still rely on those services.
Although third-tier councils are now big in Cornwall and have big budgets—£5 million or £6 million—they are still not recognised or trusted to get external funding. Everything has to come through the unitary, which can lead to a parent-child relationship. In the previous White Paper, we had the support of the previous—and now current—Secretary of State for sorting some of those issues out, as well as things like remote voting and meetings for third-tier councillors. I really hope the Department will pick that up again for third-tier councils.
On devolution, obviously the Prime Minister made a statement yesterday, which was very welcome. The focus on further devolution and growth in every postcode is very welcome to those of us in places like Cornwall. We did have a devolution deal back in 2015. It was the first non-metropolitan devo deal. We got a level 2 deal in 2023. There have been a number of situations in which we have benefited quite a lot. On public transport, for example, we got the power to franchise buses and make enhanced partnerships back in 2015.
So far, we have gone into enhanced partnerships, but we are now running a pilot to see how franchising could work in rural areas, where it is much more difficult to make it work. We picked it up and ran with it. We were the first rural area to introduce smart ticketing, for example. It will be interesting for us and North Yorkshire to see how franchising could be possible in a rural place.
Devolution could also be really important for housing. We are working towards a memorandum of understanding with Homes England, but a full strategic place partnership would also be helpful and important to us. Turning to economic growth, we lost all our EU funding in 2020, which led to a real slowdown in our growth. We did have the shared prosperity fund, but that is now finished. We had access to the Kernow industrial growth fund, which was fantastic, but we continue to need economic growth support in emerging areas, which chimes and aligns very well with the Government’s industrial strategy.
The Prime Minister has been talking a lot about the devolution of post-16 skills. In Cornwall, we know our businesses—so does the council, and the further education providers. That could work really well for us, so I am really excited to talk about a future devolution deal with the Prime Minister, as well as making the epic trip to Manchester and going to No. 10 North.
Although devolution is an exciting example of progress, it cannot overcome the financial pressures facing our more rural councils. We have heard some examples of things that cost more. Cornwall’s core spending power fell between 2010 and 2018 because of austerity and that Conservative Government, but funding has improved since then and the Government have made efforts to create a fairer funding settlement. Nevertheless, we are still below others in real terms. We have also used the second homes council tax premium, which brought in around £23 million, but even with that we remain in that position.
Rurality and peripherality make things cost more. We have heard some examples already, but I want to mention temporary accommodation, as a room in a Travelodge costs £50 in the winter and £100 in the summer. Meanwhile, home-to-school transport is crazy expensive. We cannot use buses and end up using taxis, and there are long distances involved, which makes it difficult. Furthermore, contracts for emergency accommodation also go through the roof in the summer. In children’s social care, there are very few providers and contracts get very few bidders. It is very difficult and we end up having people placed out of Cornwall, which is a very long way to go and is not good for the population.
There is also a population increase in the summer; we get about 4 million visitors. That is fantastic and it is good for our economy, but it increases demand on vital services, particularly on things such as environmental health, waste collection and emergency services, as well as public amenities. Something like an overnight visitor levy could be used for that, and we are quite excited about the potential for that to be devolved.
In conclusion, Cornwall highlights the opportunities and the challenges of rural upper-tier authorities. We are further down the line than a lot of other authorities—we have had a unitary authority for a long time—and we have seen where that takes us, particularly having lost services that are then picked up by the third tiers. Devolution will be good for us because it will mean that those decisions are taken locally, but for rural authorities to really thrive, that funding needs to reflect the additional costs and pressures of where we are in those sparsely populated areas and the fact that transport in particular is so difficult for us.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. My very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), warned earlier against pitting different parts of the UK against each other. At the risk of flying in the face of that advice and angering the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I will just say that West Dorset is the most beautiful place to live.
My rural community shares a lot of the same difficulties as everyone else here. My constituents are spread across small towns and villages, so distances are longer, there are fewer service providers and councils have fewer opportunities to achieve economies of scale. Almost half of Dorset’s residents live in areas that are among the 20% most deprived nationally in access to services. Whether it is GPs, dentists, post offices, shops, primary schools, access is much more difficult than in urban areas. As has also been highlighted, waste collection is difficult, vehicles have to travel further, highways teams have to cover more miles, social care workers have to spend more time travelling with patients, and a child with special educational needs has to travel a larger distance to reach the right school.
At the same time, Dorset has one of the oldest populations in the country: 31% of residents are aged 65 or over. Although I have repeated it many a time, and it may well not be true, my favourite fact about West Dorset is that if we were a country, we would have the oldest population in the world—we would be older than Japan. That matters because an ageing population creates additional demand for adult social care and other council services.
The Government have increased funding for local government, which is welcome, but our councils are still dealing with years of financial pressures and cuts alongside inflation, demographic change, the national living wage and increased national insurance costs. That was compounded by the change in the fair funding review 2.0 to remove rurality from all grant formulas bar adult social care.
The cost of providing home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs has risen 33% since 2016-17. Dorset has the seventh highest weekly cost for children with SEND of any authority in England. Children can live a long way from the specialist provision they need, with fewer available capable specialist providers, and transport costs more. The same applies to adult social care. There are fewer providers willing to operate across rural areas because travelling between clients takes longer. Those providers that do operate in rural areas can charge more to cover the additional time and transport costs. The council has more roads to maintain, more miles to travel and more dispersed communities to serve. A funding formula that treats rural and urban areas the same does not produce a fair outcome, as has been highlighted.
In West Dorset, bus frequency has fallen by an astonishing 62% since 2010, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns have been identified as transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. Just over one in five people in large parts of rural Dorset cannot reach a town centre within 30 minutes by public transport, yet Dorset received just £3.8 million in the bus services improvement plan funding, compared with the £11.6 million allocated to our neighbours in Devon. The funding formula needs to recognise rurality, population age, visitor number increases and accessibility needs.
We also need to look at the future of Dorset and the wider Wessex region. Since 2025, Dorset council has been working with Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, Somerset council and Wiltshire council through the Wessex Partnership. Wessex has a population of almost 2 million people, and it already works together across areas including defence, clean energy, digital and life sciences. The partnership has developed a shared regional vision and is preparing to take on greater devolved responsibility.
The Government’s current devolution framework will create different levels of opportunity depending on which model an area achieves. It is estimated that mayoral strategic authority status could provide around £460 million in additional funding each year across the Wessex region, which is about £245 per resident, as well as an estimated £16 billion of additional economic output over 30 years. If other parts of the country receive powers, greater flexibility and greater funding, Wessex needs to be able to compete on a level playing field. I would ask that the Minister agrees to meet the Wessex Partnership to discuss devolution for Wessex.
If the Government want economic growth in every postcode, funding formulas need to recognise the real costs of rurality, ageing populations and providing services across large geographical areas. Rural communities should not receive less because delivering services simply costs them more.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse.
This Government have rebuilt the local government funding formula and launched an ambitious devolution agenda, both in the name of fairness and moving power closer to the people. I question how that is working. Ministers say that the new funding formula matches money to need, and that by the end of the settlement, the most deprived places will receive 45% more funding per head than the least deprived. Nobody disputes that deprivation matters, but measuring deprivation in rural areas is not straightforward. According to the County Councils Network, county authorities will receive only £345 per head in grant funding against a national average of £526, and will therefore have to find more than 90% of any budget increase from council tax alone. That means they will receive roughly 2p of any additional Government money for every £1 of new cost pressure, while metropolitan boroughs will receive 42p. That is an enormous difference.
Although individual councils vary, the Rural Services Network shows that rural residents already pay 70% more council tax per head than urban residents, despite lower wages on average. That gap is projected to widen every year of this settlement. As others have pointed out, the Government removed the remoteness indicator from every part of the funding formula except adult social care. How does a remote child cost less to reach than a remote adult? Part of the current recovery grant is also still allocated using 2019 deprivation figures, even though updated 2025 data already exists and is used elsewhere in the very same formula. That makes no sense and perhaps the Minister can explain.
There is an unspoken assumption that needs correcting: rural does not necessarily mean rich. Research into so-called pretty poverty in Cornwall shows real deprivation hidden behind a scenic view. Measures built to track deprivation in cities simply fail to spot it. The Government’s new devolution programme has the same design fault. Evidence that I have heard this year from rural bodies and local leaders is consistent. Combined authority structures, funding pools and business rates growth incentives were all built around city region economics first and do not necessarily work in the same way in rural areas.
One flagship funding tool, full retention of business rates growth, was piloted in Greater Manchester. Will the Minister say whether that model has been tested where the business rates base is small and slow growing, as it typically is in rural England? Again, in honour of my Cornish colleagues, Cornwall tried a version of full retention in 2018, and it had to give up its rural services grant as the price of entry. I would not want rural authorities steered towards a tool that rewards growth but lacks the tax base to successfully generate it.
If the Government are serious about devolution, it has to mean something for parish and town councils, not just mayors and unitary authorities. There is no proper funding settlement and no training offer for the clerks and officers who will be increasingly asked to take on responsibilities that have been devolved down from a disappearing district tier, as in my area of Horsham. With the best will in the world, they are not properly equipped for that.
The fundamental assumption of the fair funding formula is that more deprived, mainly urban authorities have had a raw deal compared with rural shire counties, but the clear fact is that every type of council has been struggling over a long period. My county council of West Sussex is carrying almost £200 million in debt under its dedicated schools grant for special educational needs. Even with the proposed 90% reduction in SEND debts, which is welcome, that still leaves £20 million to be stripped out of a general budget that is frankly already buckling under the strain. The Government’s policy risks forcing yet more cuts on services that have already been cut too far. Two thirds of spending in West Sussex is ringfenced, which means portfolios such as highways or buses—transport—have to bear the whole burden of any savings.
The new funding formula risks condemning councils across the country to failure, but they are mostly not Labour councils and it is hard not to see a political angle. Does a pothole cost more to fix in a deprived area than in a wealthier one? No, it does not. The cost of many council services is not related at all to deprivation, so it is wrong to build an entire funding formula around that one criterion. Local councils are not the main cause of deprivation, and neither can they be the main fix. This Government promised to help working people and to devolve power. Rural authorities are still waiting. I hope the Minister will commit to using 2025 data consistently, to reinstating remoteness across the whole formula, and to properly funding and training parish and town councils so that devolution reaches the communities it is meant to serve.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate.
Before moving to rural South Devon in 2007, I had spent all my life living in and around major cities: Edinburgh, Sheffield and then London. After nearly 20 years living in the rural south-west, I can honestly say that I had previously not understood rural life because I had not lived it. I have since come to realise that the rural-urban divide is possibly one of the deepest divides in our country and one that is too often overlooked, especially by Governments made up of city and urban MPs who simply do not understand the reality of rural communities and fail to see the deprivation that lurks behind the hedgerows.
Those communities are often forgotten when spending decisions are taken despite a set of circumstances that mean we desperately need the Government’s financial backing. Incomes are lower due to the older average age, jobs are often seasonal and low-waged, people in rural areas travel almost twice as far as those in urban areas, and there is often no public transport. Healthcare is a challenge because community services have been cut, hospitals are miles away and hospital transport has all but disappeared. High-speed internet is crucial when services are scarce, yet broadband connectivity lags far behind urban areas. Banks, pubs and post offices are closing, hollowing out communities and increasing rural isolation. As the hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham)—all of them from Cornwall—have said, the high number of second homes, high house prices and low wages massively exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. In Devon, the full-time salary to house price ratio is 10.6:1—well above England’s average of 8.7:1.
Despite all that, funding is persistently driven into urban areas while rural communities are left behind. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more with less. Their policy to force local authorities to use their reserves to subsidise their revenue expenditure was deeply wrong and, as a result, six rural upper-tier local authorities are on the brink of issuing section 114 notices, which would effectively declare them bankrupt.
The current Government have committed to providing multi-year funding settlements for local authorities, which we welcome, but for rural communities the 2026-27 to 2028-29 settlement falls well short. The withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to councils in Devon, costing about £14 million, and no rural councils benefited from the replacement funding or recovery grant.
The new formulas mean that local authorities in cities will have higher spending power than in previous years while rural shire districts will have less to spend. Under the local government finance settlement for this year, urban councils will receive 32% more per head in Government-funded spending than rural councils. Devon county council will receive £1,056 in core spending power per head compared to Hackney council’s £1,645 or Liverpool city council’s £1,598. It does not cost 50% more to provide services in Hackney or Liverpool than in Devon. In fact, I would argue it potentially costs less because of the rurality.
Furthermore, the Government’s 2026-29 local government finance settlement does not include any explicit support for rural upper-tier authorities. The new formula has included remoteness only as an uplift in the formula for adult social care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, a rural child is not easier to service than a rural adult. It is utterly shocking that the Government do not believe that remoteness is relevant to the delivery of any other service, such as school transport or waste collection.
It goes way beyond the additional time it takes to travel. Rural councils have several other considerations that urban councils simply do not have to contend with, including requiring more service centres due to the spread-out population and more professionals to cover visits across a huge rural area. They receive fewer responses to contract tenders, perhaps only getting one from the incumbent provider, which leads to a market with increased prices for services.
There are physical constraints such as needing smaller refuse vehicles, especially on the narrow lanes near where I live in Devon. Those vehicles have to return to base to be emptied more often, and rural areas also need multiple depots for equipment and vehicles. Thus, they need more equipment to service the streets and more drivers.
Pockets of deprivation, often hidden by prettiness, are particularly hard hit. Social mobility for young people living in deprived rural areas is one of the lowest in the country. None of this is considered in the new funding formula outside of adult social care. I urge the Minister to review that.
Quite simply, the new system of allocation does not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services and requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of public transport. This is very much in keeping with a Labour Government that have persistently failed to acknowledge that every service is harder to deliver across rural areas.
Let me use Devon to illustrate why this service delivery is so tough. Rural Devon is a drive of over 100 miles from north to south. It would take me 10 hours to walk across just my constituency, which is a fraction of the county, and nowhere near the biggest. I am not sure how Manchesterism will translate to rural areas, but we cannot apply the same principles to a city of 3 million people and villages with just 10 houses and expect to see the same results.
The trajectory for rural councils over the next three years is deeply concerning. The very limited increase in Government funding will require service reductions or significant increases in council tax or business rate income to maintain core spending power. As has been said, rural residents will pay 17% more in council tax per head compared to urban residents this year, yet Government funding will be directed towards urban authorities.
The Government are relying on a regressive council tax to fund services in rural areas that it was never meant to. As a result of this funding settlement, by 2028-29 urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared to only 2% for rural councils. How can that be fair? These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; we are talking about people’s lives. From the growing number of children with SEND who cannot access the support they need to the closing of vital community spaces like libraries and leisure centres, this lack of funding has a real impact on people.
We are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. It will jeopardise the sustainability of rural local councils. The Liberal Democrats oppose the three-year local government finance settlement, which does not go far enough in providing a truly fair funding settlement to all local authorities across the board. We urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the true impact of rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve through the application of the fair funding formula.
The ability to provide services to people in my constituency and across rural Devon will only be made worse by the proposal for four unitary authorities recently chosen by the Government for the local government reorganisation in Devon. I urge the Minister to bear with me on this. That proposal from Labour-run Plymouth and Exeter will see those two cities massively expanded, to the great delight of their Labour MPs, and a new urban growth area based around Torbay, leaving a fourth authority—the bits that were left behind when the urban areas were gouged out—stretching 70 miles from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south, but 100 miles by road. That authority will have to maintain a road network not dissimilar to the whole of Luxembourg’s with no major town to offer opportunities for growth and regeneration and the most deprived area of Devon to support.
Helen Morgan
The point of combined authorities is to derive economies of scale from placing urban and rural areas together. Some of those economies of scale can be driven by the density in the urban area. Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no sense to split up the urban and rural areas in the way she describes?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree. It makes no sense to any of us in Devon. I have spent the entire summer listening to constituents who are deeply distressed about what has happened, which leaves them in a rump rural local authority with no option for economic growth or regeneration.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As a part-Devon Member of Parliament—the other part of my constituency is in Somerset—I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The part of my constituency in Devon is 800 square miles and will form just part of an enormous rural authority. Does she agree that that authority does not have the fiscal power to sustain itself?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree. The Government ignored local voices and went with the proposal that came fourth out of five in a public consultation, but was backed by Labour council leaders and Labour MPs who had the ear of Ministers and wanted to expand their cities. None of my constituents want it. I have spent the whole summer listening to distressed residents, as has my neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). The chosen proposal was a blatant prioritisation of economic growth for the cities of Plymouth and Exeter at the expense of the economic and social cohesion of rural Devon.
How do the Government expect this council to be financially viable when they deem remoteness irrelevant to the delivery of every service except adult social care, and when no one can even work out where the authority could be based? How can rural Devon expect growth in every postcode when there is clearly no consideration of the economic growth potential for rural Devon in the chosen proposal?
The Prime Minister talked yesterday about supporting rural areas and not creating a two-tier country, but the Government have created a two-tier Devon. I urge the Minister to listen to the many Devon MPs and the local people, go back to the drawing board on the reorganisation in Devon, look at the alternative options that were on the table, and pick one that will not leave rural communities struggling even more than they are now. If we are to have any hope of bridging the urban-rural divide, a fair funding settlement for rural councils and local government reorganisation that works for rural areas must be the start. If the Prime Minister wants a political system and economy that works for every person in the country, the Government must change the way they value and recognise rural communities.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and I welcome the Minister back to his place. I commend the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate and giving us the opportunity to speak about the rural areas that this Labour Government are neglecting.
My constituency is home to a handful of farms and the beautiful Lee Valley regional park. Although it might not be the most rural, I am well aware of the pressures faced by rural communities, which have been made clear by hon. Members across the Chamber today. Having started off with the infamous family farm tax, the Government are now moving on to implement the unfair funding review. This change in the funding formula for local government seems to have been designed with the express purpose of stripping away funding from rural areas just to hand it to urban ones.
Lewis Cocking
Lots of difficult decisions had to be made. I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that his party is in government now. We will see the mettle that they are made of in the coming months, when they have to make difficult decisions to produce their Budget, and we will also see how that goes down with the British people outside this place.
Many rural councils face real challenges across the board, and now they are expected to cope with even fewer resources. In my area of Hertfordshire, a semi-rural local authority, the county council is facing a reduction in funding of around £50 million a year. That is thanks to this Labour Government, despite the council already being under extreme pressure from an unfavourable SEND funding formula. Under that formula, Hertfordshire receives one of the lowest funding allocations per head. It would receive millions more if it were funded at the same rate as other areas.
When it comes to SEND, rural authorities lose out. Inner London boroughs receive thousands of pounds more in high needs block funding per pupil. For example, a child in Camden is allocated four times as much as a child in Yorkshire. It should not matter where someone is born in the country; children with special educational needs deserve the same resources. I am sure that all hon. Members from right across this House can agree with that.
Similarly, rural authorities have been ignored throughout this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation. As we have seen in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and other areas, rural towns and villages are now being absorbed into new unitary authorities dominated by cities. That will only result in rural areas being more marginalised and left even further behind.
Perran Moon
If His Majesty’s Opposition are so unhappy about the local government reorganisation, why is there not a single Opposition Member here to make that point other than him?
Lewis Cocking
I thought someone might make that point in this debate. I have been in debates where no Labour or Liberal Democrat MPs have turned up. When I go out and speak to my constituents about how, when they turn on the TV, the Chamber is not full, I explain to them that there are many calls upon Members’ time. I gently say to the hon. Member that some constituents will watch debates that he does not attend and be unhappy with that, so we could maybe think about that before we make interventions on that topic.
As I was saying, this Government’s top-down local government reorganisation has seen rural communities left behind. Rural communities and authorities have also been hugely hit with a high increase in housing targets, forcing them to build over the green belt and ruin the character of their areas. They have increased by up to 487%, while many Labour-run urban areas have seen their targets decrease. The new Prime Minister likes to talk about devolving power to every postcode, but the only changes that people in rural areas have seen are money and power being taken away from them. They are the people that this Labour Government should champion: the hard-working people who have too often been left behind. Instead, they are being sidelined and ignored. The Government need to take time to actually listen to the rural community and protect their way of life.
I may not represent a very rural part of this country, unlike other hon. Members in this room, who have so passionately spoken about their rural areas, but it does not take much to work out that forced local government reorganisation, increases in taxes and reduced funding formulas are the exact opposite of how the Government should support rural local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that.
I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.
Perran Moon
On that specific point, part of the reason why there is a conflation of devolution and the local government funding settlement is that, because our local councils in some areas are so deprived of funding, they have to get funding from something like a visitor levy, which would not typically be allocated for that, in order to supplement the services they need to provide. That is potentially why there is a mix-up of views about devolution and the local government settlement. Does the Minister recognise that point?
Jim McMahon
In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to.
Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another.
The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates.
As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents.
For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that.
I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.
Caroline Voaden
The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.
Jim McMahon
We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data.
We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services.
The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan.
We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school.
We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need.
The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised.
Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week.
We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.
Helen Morgan
I thank all hon. Members who have come along and made excellent speeches—particularly team south-west, who have turned out in force. They all highlighted the difficulties in delivering services in sparsely populated areas with vast distances to travel. They spoke about the impact on highways funding, the importance of generating economic growth, the cost of delivering SEND, and the proxy creation of district councils through the re-empowering of town and parish councils to deliver things that the unitary council can no longer afford to deliver because they are not a statutory requirement. They were really good speeches.
I am very disappointed that the Minister wound up with a speech that kind of told us that everything is actually fine. On the day that the local government finance settlement was announced, I sat on the Opposition Benches, along with all my colleagues, without a clue about what my local authority had been awarded because it was not findable, we had not been told and it could not be googled, yet everyone on the Labour Benches appeared to know what their settlement was and congratulated the Minister on its delivery. That is symptomatic of a pattern of this Government. They tell rural areas, “Everything is fine. It looks pretty. Go away and stop worrying, and actually, we are going to focus on urban areas.” We all recognise that urban areas need investment and are not thriving as they should be—this is not about pitting one area against another—but rural areas need fair funding and devolution. In a council that has stripped back every single employee that it can, there is no capacity to generate economic growth or transform the underlying financial structure of the council, because nobody has the time in the day to do it. They need that devolution funding to rethink how they deliver services in a sustainable way for the future. I hope the Minister will take those points on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for rural upper tier local authorities.
Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
I will call Alex Brewer to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to employer National Insurance contributions on small businesses in Hampshire.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I am equally privileged to be joined by a number of local business owners from North East Hampshire, who are in the Public Gallery.
Soaring energy costs, a business rates system in desperate need of overhaul and, perhaps the most damaging of all, a rise in employer national insurance contributions: individually, any one of those changes would be hard for a small business to absorb, but together they are too much for many small businesses across Hampshire. When a small business’s costs rise, that cost moves on to workers through stagnant wages, to customers through higher prices and to the business owners in lower profits. When the numbers simply cannot add up, the cost also moves on to local communities, through weaker local economies and hollowed out high streets. In Hampshire, where almost 98% of businesses are small businesses, that is felt by an entire county.
Small businesses cannot design their way around these tax changes. A big national chain can negotiate volume discounts, restructure its human resources or draw on a financial buffer; a beauty salon in Church Crookham or a care home in Ewshot cannot. That is why 35% of small firms say that they are planning to close or significantly scale back this year, and why these changes are, in plain terms, a jobs tax.
This matters because these are precisely the employers we need. The Government’s own research has warned that without urgent action, one in six young people could soon be a NEET—somebody not in education, employment or training. Hospitality, retail, personal care and customer service are the sectors facing the steepest rise in labour costs, yet they are the very sectors that traditionally give young people their first, vital experience in the world of work.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, I visited a business called Squeaky Clean run by Sam in Winchester. What was striking about that business was the number of students, young people and sixth-formers it employs, giving them their first job, getting them a CV and teaching them what it is like to work—to turn up on time, to take responsibility—before they go on to university and do other things. Sam told me that the single biggest difficulty she faces in keeping that business going is the rise in national insurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at this as a matter of urgency, not just for those businesses but for young people’s opportunities?
Alex Brewer
I wholeheartedly agree. That is the exact crux of the issue, and it is borne out in the data. The Bank of England decision-maker panel revealed that 46% of firms nationally have cut staff because of these changes, and that 20% have paid lower wages than planned. Nationally, small businesses account for 60% of private sector employment, so when they pull back it is not a footnote to the labour market; it is the labour market.
Nowhere is that clearer than in the hair and beauty sector. Kerry Mather has run KJM Salons in Fleet for 36 years, employing around 20 people including six apprenticeships, training a new generation in a key town centre location. In the past decade, apprenticeships in the UK hair and beauty industry have dropped from nearly 19,000 to 3,000. If we are not careful, soon there will be no apprenticeships left.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate and I will echo both what she has said and what the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) said in his intervention, because the situation is the same in Northern Ireland.
According to the Northern Ireland inter-departmental business register, small businesses and microbusinesses make up the vast majority—about 90%—of Northern Ireland’s local economy, with almost 83,000 registered businesses employing fewer than 10 people. These businesses are not faceless conglomerates; they are the family-run corner shops, local butchers and small builders across my constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer).
Echoing the hon. Lady’s opinion, the Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland has explicitly warned that these surging costs are forcing independent retailers to slash staff hours, cut back opening times and put growth on ice. Does she agree that this issue lies on the shoulders of Government and of the Minister in particular, and that this anti-business policy must stop before it pushes vital high street traders to the wall?
Alex Brewer
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that this is a matter for Government, which, of course, is why I am raising it today.
The pressure compounds, of course, where a workforce is already stretched. Vehicle repair already loses around 1,700 workers a year. The Institute of the Motor Industry says:
“Protecting that workforce is not just a matter for bodyshops and garages—it is a matter for insurers, fleet operators, and ultimately for every driver who needs their vehicle repaired.”
Foster and Heanes, a name that is well known in North East Hampshire for providing MOTs and repairs, sits squarely in the path of that shortfall. Where there are no staff available to repair a vehicle, the consequences ripple out to every tradesperson who needs a van back on the road and every local supply chain that depends on vehicles moving on time. In a constituency with limited bus infrastructure, the school run is also affected, because for many families there is no alternative but to use a car.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have said, such business challenges are of course felt across the country. Some 69% of businesses cite employer national insurance contributions as one of the top three cost threats to UK labour market competitiveness, while business confidence has fallen—even since the market turmoil of autumn 2022, which is a really damning indictment of this policy. A quarter of firms cut back investment in the very quarter that these changes took effect, making it no surprise that growth under this Government has never once crept above 0.6%.
The policy is just so hard to understand given the rhetoric used by this Government. There is talk of growth, talk of apprenticeships and talk of opportunities for young people, but the action seems to be the opposite—fewer jobs, fewer apprenticeships, less business investment and an economy that continues to stagnate. Small business owners need to understand how the Government can justify this policy.
Nowhere is the policy harder to defend than in health and social care. This year alone, independent care providers have been billed an extra £940 million. Ministers point to additional social care funding, but for providers on the ground that funding is little more than a consolation prize, because the Government voted down every single Lib Dem amendment tabled in the House of Lords to exempt care and early years providers from this rise. It has landed on a sector that is already in profound crisis and that simply cannot reduce its workforce to cope.
Hundreds of thousands of people are currently waiting for care, many of them stranded in hospital beds simply because the care they need is not available, which piles more strain on to the NHS. Liberal Democrat analysis found that almost 900,000 people had their request for care denied in the last financial year, while—tragically—a further 6,000 people died while waiting for their care to be approved. This policy does not simply squeeze care providers’ margins; it deepens a crisis with a real human cost.
That gets to the very heart of the matter. At the centre of this situation, as local business owners in North East Hampshire have told me, are people. Good employers who pay their staff a fair wage, who train and invest in their teams and who contribute to the communities in which they operate are being squeezed to breaking point.
Having barely recovered from the covid years, service and retail businesses no longer have the financial buffers they once had. That means their staff lose out not just on a pay rise but on a Christmas party or a team training day, or perhaps their equipment is not replaced as regularly or they do not get a bonus. Whatever the consequence, it is people who are impacted—the ones who this Government claim they want to support.
Hampshire’s experience and the national picture are one and the same story, but none of this was inevitable. The Office for Budget Responsibility itself says that firms will pass on 60% of the higher costs, whether through reduced wages or higher prices. Coupled with five consecutive years of falling living standards, the changes to NICs are nothing short of regressive.
There is no doubt that our public services need funding and that our country’s infrastructure needs urgent repair, and I am the first to call for those things, but there is a fair way to do this—and one that will not strangle the UK’s economic growth. The Government must focus on taxing those with the broadest shoulders so that they contribute more through a higher digital services tax, on overhauling the broken business rates system, on ensuring that enormous multinational corporations are paying their fair share for doing business in the UK, and on reversing the Conservatives’ banking tax cuts.
Positive change is possible. The Government’s steps towards cross-party discussions on social care and the 20% cut in business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues are welcome, but we must go further. Any relief to those sectors cannot leave NICs off the table. Today and every day, I represent the brilliant North East Hampshire business community. Small businesses are the engine room of the British economy, so I call on the Government to give them the certainty they need to invest, grow and create jobs. Our businesses should be thriving, not barely surviving.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for raising this issue today and for bringing representatives of businesses in her constituency to Parliament to listen to this debate about such an important issue.
As the hon. Member mentioned, the Government are prioritising growth. In the first half of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. The Government’s vision is to make sure that growth is felt in every community, high street and postcode. Small and medium-sized businesses are central to that ambition, because they play such an important role in every community across the country, creating jobs, supporting local economies and helping to drive better living standards.
Sustainable economic growth depends on stable public finances. Fiscal discipline has to be the bedrock of economic stability, and that stability is necessary to support investment, confidence and long-term growth. As hon. Members will know, the Government have taken decisions on tax, welfare and spending in order to repair the public finances, protect economic stability and fund the public services on which families and businesses rely and into which the hon. Member for North East Hampshire called for greater investment.
As part of that wider fiscal consolidation, changes have been made to employer national insurance contributions. Those changes were introduced from April 2025 and were accompanied by significant protections for smaller employers, including the more than doubling of the employment allowance to £10,500. That means that around 900,000 employers—around 40%—will have no employer national insurance liability at all. In North East Hampshire alone, around 2,300 employers benefited from the employment allowance in ’25-26. Overall across the country, the employment allowance was estimated to be worth around £7.4 billion in the last tax year.
In addition, businesses can claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, which are worth around £2.5 billion a year. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for apprentices under 25 or employees under 21 on earnings up to £50,270.
The UK’s 5.7 million small and medium-sized enterprises are central to growth across the country. The Government are backing them to succeed, supporting entrepreneurship and helping people to live well in every part of the country. Again, I thank the hon. Member for securing today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Global Tin Availability
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of levels of global tin availability on the economy.
Meur ras, Mrs Barker. It is an honour to serve under your chairship once again for such an important debate, not just for the UK’s domestic energy security but for global climate change. We were expecting more numbers when colleagues thought this was a Tinder debate, but when I explained that it was a tin debate, the numbers dropped off slightly.
The ill-informed may associate tin with cans, but in fact our cans are made almost exclusively of aluminium and contain no tin. More learned colleagues will know that tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device, is increasingly indispensable in the technologies that underpin modern industries. The digital economy, the green economy and the artificial intelligence economy—tin is foundational to each. However, as with other critical minerals, the overconcentration of processing and supply among a small number of countries a long way from western Europe presents massive economic and geopolitical risks. While debates about critical minerals are often focused on lithium, tungsten, nickel and rare earths, tin is often inexplicably overlooked.
I have to declare an interest, not only as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals but as the MP for the constituency of the last tin mine in the country to close in 1998. However, it is not only in Camborne and Redruth that the stirrings of excitement are almost palpable. Every single Cornishman and Cornishwoman across the globe will celebrate the return of an industry that goes way beyond just a job. Cornish tin may invoke something far more visceral and emotional, but before becoming a little starry-eyed about the return of Cornish tin mining, I feel it is incumbent on me to highlight tin’s new practical applications, the strategic case for it and the opportunity that we have in this country to rise to the challenges of global supply constrictions.
About half of all tin is used as solder for electronics. It is simply unrivalled in connecting components on circuit boards, enabling electrical conductivity while preventing oxidation. As a result, it is integral to almost every piece of modern technology—every smartphone, laptop, data centre server, semiconductor, telecommunications network and advanced manufacturing system. They all totally rely on tin. Without tin, there are no circuit boards, and without circuit boards, there is no new industrial strategy.
The 21st-century growth sectors—those at the global technological cutting edge—are increasingly driving demand for tin skywards. Electric vehicles require up to three times the tin of a combustion engine vehicle. Tin demand for solar panels has trebled over the last five years. Tin is required in 5G infrastructure, emerging battery technologies and renewable energy.
Interestingly, tin is increasingly important in the development of AI. AI is often discussed in terms of software and algorithms, and less so the vast physical infrastructure that sits behind it, but from the racks to the power modules and networking switches, tin is essential to the physical architecture. In the fabrication of advanced AI chips, molten tin droplets are struck thousands of times per second by high-powered lasers as part of the extreme ultraviolet lithography process used to manufacture cutting-edge semiconductors.
As Governments and companies invest billions in data centres and computational capacity, demand for tin in the UK is soaring. In the growth-driving IS-8 sectors alone, demand is expected to grow at an average of 19%, year on year, until 2035. Between now and then, a cumulative total of more than 27,000 tonnes of tin will be required.
Here is the crux of the debate. Although demand is rapidly expanding, huge questions remain about the security and resilience of global supply. Extraction and processing are currently heavily concentrated in six countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bolivia and Peru. Those countries currently supply over 90% of primary production, while China alone refines more than half of global tin.
With that comes blindingly obvious risk. We have seen in the strait of Hormuz what happens when a state weaponises its control of a choke point in global supply. The ramifications spread rapidly through entire economies. With tin, the UK is even more exposed to such global shocks because we currently produce none. We have already seen what happens to pricing with localised disruptions over the past few years: Myanmar’s 2023 Wa state mining ban; export licensing issues in Indonesia; and military conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Because the tin market is relatively small in volume compared with other metals, it is the least traded by volume on the London metal exchange. Those modest disruptions have fuelled massive price increases. In 2025, the tin price surged 40% and has rallied a further 34% this year to date, rising to nearly £40,000 a tonne. Come 2035, there will be an expected shortfall of 85,000 tonnes per year in global supply. I will say that again: come 2035, there is expected to be a shortfall of 85,000 tonnes per year in global supply.
The challenge with tin is also one of geology and ethics. Many producing regions are experiencing declining ore grades, often between 0.3% and 0.8%—I will come to it later, but the grade at South Crofty is well over 1%—and that means greater volumes of material must be processed to achieve the same output, which inevitably increases costs. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about environmental impacts, labour standards and illegal mining activity throughout the global supply chain.
I ask the Government to recognise the following. First, tin is fundamental to our advanced economy. Secondly, demand for tin will continue to far outstrip the inherently risky global supply chain. Thirdly, therefore, tin production and processing should be considered of strategic national importance, and an investment case for a tin smelter, based on UK economic security, should be developed as a priority.
When it comes to UK critical minerals, we are falling well behind competitor states such as the United States, Canada, France and Australia. The US has announced more than $40 billion in funding for critical minerals projects since 2022, alongside major equity stakes in domestic mines. Our friends and neighbours in the member states of the European Union have committed more than €6 billion to critical mineral projects in this year alone. The UK has committed a tiny fraction of that sum.
In that context, I turn back west to Cornwall. For four millennia, Cornwall has supplied tin to Britain and the world. Tin mining is woven into our history, identity and DNA, nowhere more so than in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, where the old engine houses still grace our landscape.
Tin is once again one of Cornwall’s greatest opportunities. Anchored by £28 million of National Wealth Fund investment, Cornish Metals is on course to reopen the South Crofty mine that shut 30 years ago. Hopefully, that will be achieved in 2028. South Crofty has the highest grade of unmined tin in the world. It is expected to produce up to 4,700 tonnes annually, equivalent to up to 1.6% of globally mined tin production, which could meet the demand from Britain’s growing IS-8 sectors. That is one mine; there are hundreds of mines across Cornwall with critical minerals. The range of those critical minerals is yet to be defined, but there is an awful lot of exploration going on at the moment. Nationally, this offers an opportunity to strengthen domestic supply resilience, reduce dependence on overseas extraction and support the development of strategic industries.
For Cornwall, South Crofty could be transformative. My constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle contains some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. Weekly median wages are £95 less than average, and the number of young people claiming unemployment benefits has risen by 26% this year alone. The opening of South Crofty will directly support hundreds of skilled jobs and thousands more in the wider supply chain. Multiplying that by the number of mines shows the importance of critical minerals to the Cornish economy.
If we are serious about good growth being felt in every postcode, we must champion this kind of investment. I have previously raised concerns in the House about the UK’s domestic processing and refining capacity. At present, tin mined in Britain would need to travel to east Asia for processing before returning in a form that British manufacturers can use. That is economically, geostrategically and environmentally dire. What steps will the Government take to strengthen domestic critical minerals supply chains? What progress has been made in implementing the critical minerals strategy? What consideration has been given to supporting domestic processing and refining capacity? Can energy support schemes such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme play a greater role in ensuring that our critical minerals projects remain internationally competitive? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—the Tin Man —for securing this important debate. I would like to concentrate our focus, no pun intended, on the midstream and downstream applications of tin, of which Cornwall is the cornerstone and which is an important part of the supply chain, as well as on some of the blockers to securing the supply that my hon. Friend talked about so eloquently. That is not to say that I do not worry about the upstream mining opportunities, but it is fair to say that Cornwall’s riches are abundant on that front. Yes, there will be bumps in the road, and yes, there will be successes and failures, as there have always been in the relatively high-risk business of mining, but what I really worry about is securing midstream processing. In the case of tin, it is the crucial smelting process that will enable us to keep our supply chain onshore.
I will give a brief nod to Cornwall’s other, perhaps less famous but equally important critical minerals—namely lithium and tungsten, which are under our feet today. There are many more, but it is fair to say that, as it stands today, the big three—if I can use that term—are tin, lithium and tungsten. It is imperative that, across each of those three mineral resources, where we now have absolute clarity and visibility on the security of supply upstream, we start to think about the next stage of building those supply chains.
Practically, what do we believe the Government can do to ensure that that happens? Let me start with why the Government should be involved in such a high-risk business. The fundamental question is what market failure are we trying to resolve here? No matter what a person’s ideology or political perspective on this matter, we have to accept that there is no way to build a supply chain like this from scratch and just leave it to the whim of the market. The example of China, where there has been huge state involvement, is perhaps an extreme one, but there is no way essentially to build a domestic supply chain of this kind from scratch by simply leaving it to the whim of individual firms to go out and do the right thing. That is why the Government’s involvement is crucial.
We are not trying to solve a trick here; it is basic economics that the Government have a role to play in ensuring that we nurse the development of those supply chain projects, from a nascent idea or from something that various firms are thinking about on the side but which is not core to their business. Those junior miners already have a proper job on their hands, and it is not reasonable for the Government to snap their fingers and expect the processing opportunities to come about. That is where Government support is really valued.
We already have the Kernow industrial growth fund, and I am hugely grateful to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and to those in the Minister’s Department, for the work that they undertook to help us secure that investment, which is already being put to work on a pipeline of projects not just across this most promising of industries, but in many other Cornish industries besides. It will create those desperately needed jobs and help us to secure our industrial supply chains.
What can the Government do? It is imperative that we involve ourselves wholeheartedly in the upstream development of those projects, work with credible industrial sponsors and source the financial capital needed. That is not to say that we should do it all alone. Private and public partnerships—which we are already seeing through partners such as the National Wealth Fund and the industrial growth fund—need to thrive to ensure that we create the conditions for success.
Of course, there are many blockers, too, and it is important that the Department works with colleagues across the Government. For example, where there are challenges in getting a grid connection, securing appropriate transport links or unblocking planning barriers, we need a joined-up, cross-Government approach. I am proud to say that in Cornwall, the groundwork has been done. We have the visibility and the makings of a plan for how we might build that supply chain out. We have done the substantive work and the number crunching, and we have worked out what the capital need is and how much of it can be privately invested versus publicly catalysed.
I ask that the Minister continues his work with us. The work has already begun, and I am incredibly grateful for his time and interest in this sector, but I implore him to bring colleagues from across the Government to meet the challenge and to help us secure the vital tin smelter and solve the energy cost issue, which is probably the immediate need. I implore him to go beyond that for the home-grown supply chain, in an industry in which I know Britain can succeed and Cornwall can be at the forefront. I implore him to work across Government to get this to the top of our agenda and make a success of it for everyone in Cornwall and Britain.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mrs Barker; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank my Cornish colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for securing this important debate.
As my hon. Friends from Cornwall know and speak about so powerfully, Cornwall has a proud mining heritage and was a key part of Britain’s first industrial revolution. We now have an opportunity to revitalise that in a way that serves our future aspirations. It is fantastic that this Labour Government have recognised that through the Kernow industrial growth fund. Local projects, such as the Cornwall Resources Redmoor tungsten and tin project, can bring crucially needed investment to areas like Callington in my constituency, as well as opportunities throughout South East Cornwall. We need to make sure that the benefits of those are felt by my local community; that means local skills, apprenticeships and good-quality jobs.
I strongly believe that our young people should not feel that they have to leave the place they are from to get on in life and succeed. Tin and the mining opportunities of Cornwall are a significant factor in how we build their future hopes and aspirations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, demand for tin is increasingly driven by electronics, AI and clean energy. South East Cornwall can contribute its natural resources and hard-working and talented people to those growing industries. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the critical minerals strategy connects with the Government’s wider industrial strategy and skills agenda. I am sure that he remembers fondly his previous visit to South East Cornwall. I put on record my thanks for his visit and extend another invitation for him to join me in future.
We need to develop these resources responsibly. I am so proud that South East Cornwall is playing a role in securing that. Cornwall contains some of our country’s most important landscapes and ecosystems, and draws millions of tourists each year. We care about it and value it hugely, so we must ensure that environmental protection and restoration are built into mineral extraction from the outset. Being part of that heritage, we know how to do it well—areas that were doing it previously are supportive and have the expertise. We can lead the way domestically and internationally, and show how things are done without relying on imports.
There is a real economic opportunity. The Government’s own critical minerals strategy recognised the gap in our tin supply chain: extracted tin is currently exported for refining before refined tin is imported again. Given that today’s tin price is almost £15,000 higher than at this point last year, the strategic importance of this specific mineral is growing. Can we use this opportunity to close that gap while creating processing and manufacturing jobs in the UK, alongside the already established mining jobs, as my colleagues have mentioned?
This industry is of national importance, and it is strategically crucial for the country. That must be recognised as we look at this in more detail. We need to be strategic about Britain’s natural resources. We should learn from our experience with oil and gas, and think carefully about how we capture long-term value from the resources we have. I previously made the case for thinking differently about natural wealth and our natural resources, including the value of our data, and I see similar principles to apply here. These are national assets, but they are also local assets, and we can create long-term wealth if they are strategically managed for the public good, and as long as we are working with the incredibly important businesses that are doing such vital work in this area.
Will the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that that value created by the private sector from public wealth in critical minerals is captured through things such as skills, innovation, domestic supply chains and future economic growth? These are opportunities that the people of Callington, in other areas of South East Cornwall and from across Cornwall will value highly. Cornwall can help to power the industries of tomorrow while ensuring that benefits to the community are felt today and in the future. The opportunities are significant. South East Cornwall is ready to play its part, once again, in this national push towards good economic growth, and we look forward to working with the Minister to do so.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this debate.
Tin is one of those materials that most people never really think about, but our everyday lives depend on it because it is the material that physically holds all our devices together, with soldering being one of its most significant uses worldwide. It joins the components on our circuit boards. It is in almost every single device, from the smartphones that we all own to the computers and data centres powering the AI revolution. This debate is not about a niche commodity; it is about a key component of our everyday lives.
However, one of the problems is scale. Globally mined tin output this year will be about 294,000 tonnes, which is absolutely tiny compared with copper or aluminium. That scale is so small that the market is acutely sensitive to any disruption in any single place. The supply of tin, as we know, is extraordinarily concentrated. China is one of its largest single producers, accounting for about a third of the global tin supply, and Indonesia, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold much of the rest. Several of the jurisdictions mining the majority of our tin are affected by international conflict, resource nationalism or simple geological decline, and the result, since 2025, has been the strongest price rally of any major industrial metal in the UK.
The Government already recognise that, which is why tin sits on the UK’s critical minerals list. However, just because it is on the list, we do not necessarily get anything from that recognition. Many other countries know exactly what critical minerals they have in the ground. Canada is specifically good at that, knowing its exact critical minerals map across the nation. The UK Government do not have a critical minerals map for the entire United Kingdom, so I ask the Minister if there is a plan for his Department to try to see what critical minerals we have in the ground.
We do know that tin is in the ground in Cornwall. It is not a new idea to extract tin from the ground there; it is one of the oldest industries on these islands. Cornish tin was being carted to the coast and shipped to the Mediterranean even before Rome ruled Britain. Under the Romans, extraction significantly increased. From the late Roman period to the late medieval period, Britain had a monopoly on the tin trade. Some 2,000 years later, we import almost all of our tin. Cornwall remained one of the most significant tin-producing regions for more than 400 years, and Cornish Metals is now doing work to try to re-establish that long history. Dewatering has reached about 350 metres in the tin mines we are looking to reopen, and the old pumping infrastructure has been found intact nearly three decades after it closed. We are glad to see flagship project status for that in the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and that the National Wealth Fund has invested £28 million in equity as part of its wider project.
If we manage to reach the production targeted for 2028, South Crofty could create 300 direct jobs and hundreds more indirect jobs in the Cornish economy, in an area that is economically disadvantaged compared with large parts of the country. That is incredibly important. It would not just be important for the UK, as it would be the only primary tin mine in Europe or North America —not one of the largest, but the only one. That is why it is so significant: the United Kingdom and Cornwall have the chance to have one of the only tin-production facilities on this side of the world. We must take that into account when we consider how the critical minerals strategy will move forward.
I have questions for the Minister on this topic. First, what practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the mid-2028 target is met, particularly on permitting, skills and grid connection? Secondly, what assessment has been made of a strategic tin stockpile, particularly from the recovery of electronic waste, so that we reduce demand for imports rather than simply redirecting it? Thirdly, what is being done on due diligence, given that tin comes from some regions where trade is entangled with armed conflict? Fourthly, what is the Government’s plan for critical minerals partnerships with reliable partners around the world, in the European Union and in Commonwealth countries?
An alternative supply chain can exist, but the United Kingdom is not large enough to do it on our own. However, with a coalition of the willing and other partners around the world, we could bring that forward, and we need to work for that. Resilience cannot be ordered at short notice; it must be built, and that building needs to start now, with our friends and neighbours.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. Thank you very much for keeping us all in order.
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing the debate. I am pleased that he clarified that it is not a debate on Tinder. To clarify, I did know that it was a debate about tin and not Tinder, but it is clear that he is a perfect match for this subject, because—I did not know this, actually—he is known as the Tin Man. Unlike in “The Wizard of Oz”, though, he does not need to search for a heart, because it is clear that he cares deeply about this subject and is a great advocate for tin and for his constituents. I very much enjoyed, and was partly educated by, his excellent speech. He will recognise elements of his speech in my own, because of the excellent points he made.
Unlike lithium, tin is rarely treated to big headlines and gigafactory photo opportunities. However, as we have been hearing, it quietly plays an indispensable role in our economy. Half the tin we consume goes to electrical solder, supporting our entire electronics industry, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out so eloquently. Demand is only increasing as solar panels, electric vehicles and AI data centres compete for the same limited global supply, and it is no surprise that prices have soared to nearly $50,000 per tonne as a result.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth was right to highlight the new investment in the South Crofty mine as of May 2026, which will open it up for the first time in decades. That is excellent news for the country and, obviously, for his constituency. It would be remiss of me not to point out that the National Wealth Fund has existed for quite some time. It was created by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) as the UK Infrastructure Bank, and although it has been renamed under the new Labour Government, the organisation’s construct and purpose remain. I am very grateful for that, as I am sure the people of Cornwall are, because, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth will be aware, back in 2023 the UK Infrastructure Bank invested in Cornish lithium.
This subject is not alien to the Conservative party, and we care deeply about it. The hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but he and the Minister will be aware that the last Conservative Government created the first critical minerals strategy, which recognised tin as one of 18 essential minerals. It is vital that we have a critical minerals strategy, and we welcome the investment that has been made, but we must ensure that we do not just celebrate one investment rather than talking about the overall issues and strategy. I look at the current Government’s critical minerals strategy, and I am afraid I take issue with the fact that it does not mention China even once, despite China’s near monopoly on the processing of critical minerals, as was highlighted by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). That is not just an omission in the Government’s strategy; it is a hole in the middle of the plan roughly the size of the South Crofty mineshaft.
It will be no surprise to the Minister that I have a few questions for him. First, smelting tin is extremely energy intensive, and we know that the UK’s industrial energy prices are around 50% higher than those of our friends in France and Germany. How are the Government squaring their clear critical minerals ambitions with those very clearly rising energy costs?
Secondly, I recognise that he is not a Foreign Office Minister—as tempting as it is, I will not ask him to solve international conflicts from the Dispatch Box today —but global tin supply has decreased due to unrest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the restrictions in Myanmar’s Wa state, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had directly with his Foreign Office counterparts about the security of the supply routes for tin?
Lastly, how do the Government reconcile such enthusiasm for critical minerals, which the Minister will clearly demonstrate in a minute, with the national insurance rise and the Employment Rights Act 2025? Those measures will cost this very industry some £50 million exactly at the moment when foreign investors are voting with their feet and, unfortunately, taking money outside our country.
South Crofty will not produce its first tonne of tin until 2028 at the earliest. Between now and then, we must back British businesses in the critical minerals sector, and we must oppose the economic pressures that the Government are unrelentingly piling on the industry. I hope that the Minister can provide some of the answers to my questions, because right now, frankly, his strategy has all the substance of fool’s tin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and to congratulate him on securing this debate. It is a further pleasure to be taken back, at least momentarily, to my summer holiday in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). I will not say where I would rather be at this particular moment.
Scientists have said that the shortest scientifically measurable period of time is 247 zeptoseconds, but I can confirm that my own research has found an even shorter measurable time than that, which is the period between someone being appointed the Minister for critical minerals and all the Labour MPs from Cornwall contacting them to ask for meetings and conversations about the potential for critical minerals in that part of the world. Perhaps appropriately for a debate on mining, they are Stakhanovian in their work effort on this issue.
This debate on global tin availability is timely, as has been said. It is not always the mineral that attracts the big headlines, but to respond to the first request of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, I confirm that the Government absolutely recognise that tin is central and fundamental to modern economic life. It is the solder that connects circuit boards, semiconductors, data infrastructure, automotive electrics and of course defence technologies. When global tin supply is tight, the impact can be felt far beyond mining markets, in manufacturing costs, supply chain resilience, investment decisions and, ultimately, the UK’s ability to deliver growth, energy security and national security.
My hon. Friend’s constituency is absolutely central to that discussion and to meeting those challenges. It is home to significant tin deposits, including the South Crofty tin mine, which has a high-grade tin resource and the potential to re-establish meaningful primary tin production in the UK. That matters not only for Cornwall’s proud mining heritage, which I was going to say goes back to the bronze age, but given that tin is one of the constituent parts of bronze, perhaps it predates the bronze age. Cornwall is the tin isles mentioned by Herodotus. As has been said, however, the future of tin mining is of much more immediate importance, and a source of excitement. The question before us is not simply whether we can mine more tin again, but how a secure, responsible and diverse tin supply can support jobs, industrial competitiveness, clean energy deployment and economic resilience.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this debate. I am sponsoring an event next door at which I had to speak, so I could not be in the Chamber, although I intended to be here. I spoke to you earlier, Mrs Barker, for permission to ask a question instead.
The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic spokesman for Cornwall. He is present whenever we debate a subject that has to do with Cornwall, and I congratulate him on that. This issue is of particular significance for us in Northern Ireland, and we want to add our support for what the hon. Gentleman is doing, because we have no major domestic source of tin and rely on imported supplies, making businesses vulnerable to international supply chain disruption. Businesses in Northern Ireland also face additional complex regulatory requirements to ensure that tin is not linked to conflict or illegal mining.
We in Northern Ireland want to add our support to Cornish Metals’ plans to establish production at the South Crofty mine in Cornwall, which could support the securing of a supply for the west and ensure that Northern Ireland has accessible tin at an affordable price, with no EU interference in the trade. I again commend the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and I look to the Minister to support him. We certainly support him in Northern Ireland.
Blair McDougall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his offer of support for the effort. One of Northern Ireland’s key economic strengths is advanced manufacturing, and the importance of tin runs through that sector from top to bottom. Tin underpins so much: advanced manufacturing, automotive production, aerospace, clean energy technologies, data centres, telecommunications and defence, all of which are important for Northern Ireland and the UK at large. If tin is scarce, volatile or increasingly concentrated in a few countries, as hon. Members have mentioned, those pressures can affect investment confidence, productivity and our competitiveness in the sectors within the industrial strategy.
It is not enough, as my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) have said, simply to leave this matter to the market. We have a responsibility to make sure that local people benefit from it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall also said, it is essential to our ability to deliver on the industrial strategy as a whole. Critical minerals in themselves are an essential part of the UK economy, but they also underpin everything else that we are trying to achieve. That is why the critical minerals strategy is focused on resilience, improving our understanding of demand, supporting domestic capability where it is viable and environmentally responsible, increasing recycling and working with international partners so that UK businesses are not dependent on fragile or overly concentrated sources of supply.
We cannot onshore every part of the supply chain, but where we have those resources—as we clearly do in Cornwall—capable companies, the environmental protections and community support here in the UK, we can make a contribution to that resilience. That is why, for example, we supported the South Crofty tin project through £20 million of equity investment and last week announced a £71 million investment into Tungsten West. As hon. Members have said, exploration and mining are great, but we also want to see more processing, refining and recycling in the UK. That is why we put the £25 million critical minerals accelerator in place: to help viable projects to get over that hump and get into the market. It is why we are introducing BICS to make the energy costs for potential refining projects more affordable and dealing with things like grid connections.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), asked about intelligence. We have instituted the growth minerals list to get a sense of our demand and introduced the demand aggregator to get a sense of that with allies. The Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre published a prospectivity report, which sets out exactly what he asked about in terms of the potential resources, and we work with the British Geological Survey on that basis. As I said, we are working with international partners to make sure that we have reliable prices, diverse sources and material produced to the high standards that the modern economy requires.
In conclusion, tin has a major economic footprint. It connects the technologies that power our homes, vehicles, factories and communications. The global availability of tin therefore matters to prices, productivity, resilience and good growth. The Government’s approach is clear: support responsible domestic production where we can, recover more value through recycling, build better data on demand, mobilise finance and work with international partners to diversify supply. By doing so, we can reduce vulnerability, support British industry, create skilled jobs and ensure that the UK economy has access to the critical minerals that it needs for the future. I look forward to working with hon. Friends to that end—and, as I am the only person who has not mentioned Tinder, let me finish by saying that I will always swipe right for my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth.
Perran Moon
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. Perhaps next time I should actually advertise it as a Tinder debate, and we can educate people while they are here.
I will thank a few people specifically. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is very knowledgeable, particularly in the areas of midstream and downstream work; he talked about processing supply chains. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned the Kernow industrial growth fund. Right now, that fund is being used for exactly what it was designed to do—to support some exploratory mining opportunities, among other commercial opportunities in Cornwall. He also mentioned unblocking planning and permitting issues, which we need to take on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall is a superb champion for Cornwall Resources, which is doing amazing things to maximise the opportunity in tungsten. She talked insightfully about the local benefits, including in relation to the skills agenda. We really need to tie that agenda in with our devolution deal, which I know the Prime Minister has mentioned several times in the last 48 hours. For us in Cornwall, the skills agenda will be critical—excuse the pun—to maximise the opportunities in this particular sector.
I totally agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), about the exploration that is urgently needed on these critical minerals. I heard what the Minister said, but we are not just talking about tin, tungsten and lithium, the three we know about at the moment; we know from previous records that we also have nickel, cobalt, uranium, silver and many others, but we need the data that exploration can provide and we need support in that regard.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), clearly grasps the importance of Cornish tin mining. He also mentioned energy costs; perhaps that is a debate for another day but, because of our Cornubian batholith, which is the granite formation on which Cornwall sits, we have vast geothermal opportunities. We are looking at whether there is a commercial case to make use locally of that geothermal energy to drive some of our industrial regeneration.
I have already mentioned the importance of aligning this issue to the devolution deal. Really, this debate was more of a clarion call to Government to focus very closely, not only on lithium and tungsten, but on a huge opportunity within the tin sector across the whole of Cornwall.
Finally, I warmly extend an invitation to the Minister to visit the South Crofty tin mine.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of levels of global tin availability on the economy.
Written Statements
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chemical Weapons Convention: Declaration of Protective Programmes
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The United Kingdom’s chemical protection programme exists to safeguard against the threat of chemical weapons. The UK’s entirely defensive focused programme is permitted under the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom remains fully compliant.
As required by the convention, the United Kingdom submits annual information—via the required template—to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In line with the Government’s commitment to transparency, I am placing in the Library of the House copies of the summaries provided to the organisation that describe the United Kingdom’s chemical protection programme for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025.
Attachments:
Chemical Weapons Convention (20230315_Annex B -UK Protective Programmes CWC Annual Declaration for 2022 Final.pdf).
Chemical Weapons Convention (20240201.Annex C -UK Protective Programmes CWC Annual Declaration for 2023_ Final (1 ).pdf).
Chemical Weapons Convention (20250331.Annex D UK Protective Programmes CWC Annual Declaration for 2024 Final.pdf).
Chemical Weapons Convention (20260210.Annex E UK Protective Programmes CWC Annual Declaration for 2025 Final.pdf).
Attachments can be viewed online at:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-09-02/hcws305
[HCWS305]
Capacity Market: Consultation on Changes for Prequalification 2027
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the publication of two documents relating to the capacity market:
A consultation on changes for prequalification 2027; and
An open letter inviting stakeholder views on new technologies in the capacity market.
The above documents support our objectives of delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring security of supply.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has secured sufficient capacity to ensure consistent and reliable electricity supply in Great Britain. The funding provided through the capacity market scheme aims to incentivise investment in new and existing generation, interconnectors, batteries and consumer-led flexibility mechanisms to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to meet future demand when required. This capacity is acquired through competitive annual auctions held at intervals four years ahead and one year ahead of their respective delivery years. The Government regularly amend the framework underpinning the capacity market before auction cycles to ensure that it is cost-effective and meets broader strategic objectives, including the transition to clean power.
The prequalification 2027 consultation published today seeks views on a package of proposals intended to strengthen confidence that capacity secured through the capacity market will be delivered when required, ensure that consumer-led flexibility is appropriately valued for its contribution to security of supply, and deliver further administrative and operational improvements to the scheme.
Specifically, the consultation seeks views on:
Reviewing the delivery assurance framework: Strengthening confidence that capacity will deliver when required. This includes enhanced testing and more stringent data requirements.
Consumer-led flexibility: Referred to as demand-side response, or DSR, in CM legislation. Proposals consider how we can more accurately de-rate DSR capacity, support DSR capacity through to delivery by making trading and terminations changes and improve operational efficiencies.
Further administrative and operational improvements to the capacity market: Clarifications and amendments to improve transparency, consistency and enforceability of the rules.
Secondly, we are publishing an open letter inviting stakeholder views on new generating technologies that should be considered for inclusion in the capacity market. Stakeholders are now invited to provide views and supporting evidence on such technologies.
The capacity market remains Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring capacity adequacy, and these publications focus on how the Government can ensure the scheme continues to meet its primary security of supply objective. The proposals put forward seek to ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose and continues to play a crucial role in delivering secure electricity supplies to consumers in a clean power system.
[HCWS303]
Planning Application: Botley West Solar Farm
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Photovolt Development Partners on behalf of SolarFive Ltd for the construction and operation of a solar farm on land in the West Oxfordshire, Cherwell and Vale of White Horse districts.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report, unless a new deadline is set using the power under section 107(3) of the Act. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The statutory deadline for the decision on the Botley West solar farm application was 10 September 2026.
I have decided to allow an extension and set a new deadline of 10 November 2026 for deciding this application. This is to enable my Department and other interested parties to consider further information received from the applicant.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS304]
NHS Pension Scheme
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Over the past year, I have made regular statements about the implementation of the McCloud remedy in the NHS pension scheme. This hugely complex undertaking across the public sector pension schemes is required to address age discriminatory policy legislated for by the coalition Government in 2013.
The NHS pension scheme is administered on behalf of the Department by the NHS Business Services Authority. In 2025, the NHSBSA failed to meet its McCloud delivery deadlines. In response, in July 2025, I commissioned Lisa Tennant in her capacity as chair of the NHS pensions board to carry out an independent review of the NHSBSA’s delivery of the McCloud remedy. The report from this review has been published today on www.gov.uk. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
The review was an extensive and forensic undertaking. It has identified and made recommendations across two broad categories of findings:
Strategic factors: including governance, leadership, organisational culture and systemic issues
Operational factors: including the operating model, operational readiness, digital and data, customer experience and change management.
Lisa Tennant’s final report makes clear that further action is required to put the NHS pension scheme on a secure footing and to prepare it for long-overdue modernisation.
Since July 2025, I have regularly met Lisa to hear her emerging findings and I have increased the Department’s oversight and support for the NHS pension scheme:
NHSBSA is now required to provide much more frequent and detailed reporting of scheme performance to the Department;
I have ensured that McCloud planning and delivery resources were increased;
I have visited the NHSBSA’s headquarters in Newcastle to see at first hand its work to strengthen delivery arrangements at the NHS pension scheme.
The NHSBSA has also acted. A dedicated new leadership team for the NHS pension scheme has been created. When the McCloud planning was largely complete, the NHSBSA team started to reassess in June how the pension scheme’s rules were being applied. They reported to the Department at the end of July that there were issues in the administration of a small proportion of members’ records, with the earliest dating back to 2008. Most of these issues built up between 2014 and today, and in a small number of cases, I regret to say that some are ongoing. As a result, while the vast majority of members are receiving the correct pension amount, some will have been entitled to more.
To establish with absolute certainty that all the affected members have been properly identified, I have this week appointed the Government Actuary’s Department to lead a comprehensive audit of the scheme’s administration. I will report back to the House on the audit’s progress and findings. A new departmental board has been established, with external and independent expertise, to oversee the NHSBSA’s implementation of the audit’s findings and its wider pensions operations. This board will meet regularly from next week, reporting to me.
Based on what we know today, around 95% of members will be unaffected. Many of those who are will already be retired and receiving a pension. The NHSBSA will continue to pay pensions promptly and reliably, and to process retirement applications.
Each member who is directly affected will be contacted personally by the NHSBSA, and I will make sure that this happens as quickly as possible. No action is needed by anyone who is a member of the NHS pension, whether working or retired. NHSBSA will ensure that information for members is available on its website and is updated regularly. Records will be corrected and, where appropriate, pension awards will be updated. Where payments or increases are due, interest will be payable.
There has rightly been much scrutiny of progress in delivering the McCloud remedy, which resulted from poor decision making by previous Governments. McCloud implementation introduced significant additional pressure on the administration of the NHS pension scheme, which was already strained, due to growth in scheme membership numbers, complexities in scheme design and an outdated technology infrastructure.
In the light of the new issues that have been uncovered, I have directed the NHSBSA to reassess the deliverability of its McCloud plans. I will continue to hold the authority to account for the delivery of the NHS pension scheme and to provide regular updates to the House, setting new statutory deadlines for McCloud when I can do so with confidence.
I am making this statement today because I want to be transparent about these concerning issues at the NHS pension scheme, and to confirm this Government’s commitment to addressing them in full. I will shortly visit the NHSBSA and will make it clear that if progress is not made at sufficient pace, I will consider what further action is required. I will keep the House updated on progress.
[HCWS307]
Northern Ireland Parades Commission
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I wish to update the House on the recent High Court decision regarding Portadown District LOL No.1’s application to the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland, as well as the steps I am taking in light of the ruling.
In July 2026 a member of the Portadown Orange Lodge sought a judicial review challenging the Parades Commission’s determination to restrict the return leg of the annual Drumcree parade along Garvaghy Road in Portadown. On 25 August 2026, the High Court in Belfast quashed the Parades Commission’s determination. The commission did not contest the proceedings, due to procedural issues identified in relation to how the decision was recorded. Specifically, not every commissioner had approved the final text of the commission’s determination.
The Parades Commission performs a vital and complex quasi-judicial role in what can often be sensitive and difficult circumstances. Over the past three decades, Northern Ireland has made significant progress in easing tensions surrounding parades. Today, the vast majority of parades take place peacefully and without community tension, with fewer than 5% of the nearly 4,000 annual parades deemed sensitive.
However, the recent High Court ruling has highlighted clear procedural defects. The Commission must have the fullest possible confidence of all communities across Northern Ireland. I met with the commissioners on 1 September to discuss their response. Having considered it, I am satisfied that the issues raised are being taken seriously and that progress is being made.
To provide public assurance, support the commission and ensure its operational framework is legally sound and procedurally fair, I have ordered an independent judge-led review into the commission’s decision-making procedures and organisational governance. This will strengthen the commission’s immediate and future work. In the meantime, the current commissioners have my full backing. It is in the public interest that they continue their critical functions as we work together to restore public trust in this vital institution.
Scope and Governance of the Review
Progress on the judge-led review will be monitored directly by Baroness Anderson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who will report back to me.
Although the terms of reference are still being finalised, the review will concentrate on the commission’s decision-making procedures—placing particular emphasis on ensuring that decisions are evidence-based, transparent, robust and fair in order to eradicate the procedural defects that were identified.
The legal framework of the parading sector, as set out in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, remains outside the scope of this review.
The review will commence this month, with the final report submitted to myself and the chair of the commission within two months of the review commencing. Following the submission of the final report, Baroness Anderson will maintain direct ministerial oversight of the implementation programme to embed any recommended measures, with a progress report to be published before the end of the year.
I have also instructed officials to launch a public appointments process shortly to appoint commissioners. This is standard practice, as one commissioner has recently resigned and the remaining commissioners are approaching the end of their terms of office.
Whatever the shortcomings highlighted in the High Court ruling, there is no justification for anyone stepping outside the law. I urge all communities to remain committed to the lawful notification of parades, to conduct all processions and protests lawfully, and to support the work of this review as we strengthen the commission for the future.
[HCWS306]