Representation of the People Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[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:

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Local Government Reorganisation

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

This Government are driving the most ambitious programme of local government reform in a generation by replacing the inefficient two-tier system with new unitary councils so that all parts of our country are ready for devolution. We need to devolve power out of Whitehall so that we can rebalance wealth, power and opportunity right across the country. This is the second richest country in Europe, yet England has seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. That is the case for change.

Devolution requires strong local councils that deliver good public services and support economic growth, and which are closely connected to the communities they serve. Two-tier structures are confusing for residents, divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. In many areas, existing boundaries no longer match patterns of local economies, public services or local identities. We cannot continue with an outdated and misaligned system that does not serve local people well. We can do better.

Today I am announcing further decisions on local government reorganisation in the remaining areas of the programme. Subject to parliamentary approval, I have decided to implement proposals for new councils in the following areas. In some of these areas, modification powers will be used to make the boundary changes requested alongside proposals.

The specifics are in the accompanying written statement, and for ease I will refer to the proposals in the following shortened form: in Derbyshire and Derby, the two-unitary option put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council, except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester city council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Lincoln city council, including boundary changes, but leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham city council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford and Cannock Chase, but also by Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two unitary proposal in Worcestershire. On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.

Everyone involved wants to see stronger local councils delivering better local services that will improve the lives of the people we serve. The decisions announced today will do that, and improve local government for more than 15 million people. We will see 38 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 134. That will result in more than 250 fewer senior posts, significant salary savings and nearly 3,000 fewer councillors, which could save up to £20 million per year on councillor allowances alone across these areas. Councils themselves projected that the decisions could lead to net savings of about £1 billion by the end of 2032-33 when the anticipated benefits are fully realised. Those savings will be reinvested in the frontline services that local people care about the most. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. That will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people.

Reorganisation will also support city growth. For example, Plymouth is a nationally significant defence growth location and a house building priority, driven by investment at Devonport. Leicester is a major urban economy facing cross-boundary housing, employment and infrastructure pressures, including unmet housing need. Our decisions today will help those two cities grow, along with others, including Preston, Derby, Nottingham, Exeter, Oxford, Brighton and Hove, and Lincoln. These bigger cities will be crucial in ensuring that our country can build the homes we need.

I am tremendously grateful for all the hard work that councils put in to their proposals, but I appreciate that some Members of this House and some councils will disagree with my decisions. I am sure we can all agree that the hard work of transition to new councils must continue to be a shared endeavour across local and central Government. To protect the services that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities rely on, we all need to get that right.

A broad support offer is in place for councils, including support to councils through our sector advisers and through funding to the Local Government Association. We have already announced £63 million in capacity funding to support the reorganisation process. I am pleased to provide further detail today on how this funding will be allocated. Each area will receive an unprecedented £900,000 per new unitary council in capacity funding. On top of that, we are committing up to £150,000 in supplementary funding, as part of a wider package of support for children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Taken together, for every reorganisation area, there will be over £1 million in capacity funding for each new unitary council. This is the first time that reorganisation has been supported in this way, and it shows this Government’s commitment to supporting councils to ensure that we get these reforms right.

The programme will now move forward in line with the timetable already set out, with elections to the new unitary councils scheduled for May 2027, ahead of new councils taking up their powers in April 2028. Today marks a significant milestone for the future of local government, with decisions now taken on 19 out of 21 two-tier areas across England. Reorganising local government is not a debate about where to draw lines on a map or about structures and systems; it is about making real improvements to people’s lives and to the communities they are a part of. This reform programme is ambitious, but it is the right thing to do. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with him on several occasions and I recognise the work he does to champion his local communities, including through the process we are currently engaged in. Council tax will be a matter for the council to set for itself, within the parameters permitted, and it will take those decisions in due course. The particular split in the case of Staffordshire was proposed and selected to minimise service disruption by aligning with delivery, commuting, patient flows and partnership. The proposal we have adopted will be very strong on financial sustainability and resilience. That will benefit the stability of services, but it should also benefit council tax levels further down the line.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections. Councils have been forced into putting time and resources into coming up with proposals, many of which have been ignored. Councillors and officers have been uncertain about their future for the nearly two years it has taken to get to this point. Many communities will feel done to, not done with.

The lack of notice and opportunity to scrutinise the Department’s decisions is also a huge concern. The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford. Many communities and council wards in Oxfordshire will also now be arbitrarily divided between the new unitary councils. Colleagues in Devon worry that rural communities have been ignored at the expense of new unitaries designed to benefit the needs of cities.

There were endless changes of mind about Sussex elections and boundaries, and now, the fact that a decision has not been made about West Sussex has been met with disbelief. The Government promised to work in partnership with local authorities and rebuild the trust that was shattered over the past decade. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the long- term financial viability of the proposed unitary structures, given that several of the councils being merged risk being financially unviable?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I come to Back Benchers, let me say that, as Members will be aware, a lot of you wish to get in. It would be very helpful if questions were succinct.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. I have to tell the Secretary of State that this is a decision that I cannot and will not support.

Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process? Finally—thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—given his announcement that he will hold off on making a decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will he re-think on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and hold off on making a decision until an agreement can be made in my part of the world?

[Steve Reed]

First of all, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he always champions and represents the views and interests of his constituents. We have indeed known each other for a very long time, and I always appreciate his views, even when we disagree. I will, of course, be happy to ensure that he has a meeting with me or a relevant Minister to discuss his concerns, but the decision we have taken on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was made because it offers the strongest economic geography, and allows economic growth to happen at pace. That will benefit everyone living in Nottinghamshire. We really must take decisions that will tackle the wide economic divides that are pulling this country apart. Everyone everywhere in this country deserves the chance to get on, and that means bringing investment and good jobs to every single part of this country. This is what this proposal is intended to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln? Why is he loading debt on Lincoln city council—for example, for the Hykeham bypass? There is no logic in this, other than it being a stitch-up by Lincoln Labour party. This is the only Labour-controlled council in Lincolnshire. Everybody else has been treated with complete contempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I make another exhortation for short questions, please?

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the four-unitary model for Devon, as I think it best serves the interests of everyone across Devon. This has been a long time in the making for Exeter. It has been increasingly unsustainable to retain Exeter—an economic driver of the region—as a district council. Does the Minister agree that this proposal will allow Exeter to better drive sustainable economic growth, jobs and opportunity, and will mean that decision making is better represented by the people in my city?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I am a strong proponent of unitaries, given that the root-cause of many of the problems in my constituency is the fact that we have districts and the county council. There is no perfect solution for anywhere, and everywhere is special, but Kent has a lot of elements that are particularly special. We have three coasts, links to the continent and the rest of the country and, in my constituency, two industrial towns that are completely outwith the rest of the county’s economy. There are challenges around the decision that was made, particularly where transport links and NHS boundaries do not line up. Also, because the constituency has been separated from the rest of the Thames estuary, we are missing out on huge economic potential. Will the Secretary of State outline what we will do to accelerate devolution powers to Kent and my constituency—particularly to ensure that we are creative so that we do not just follow the medieval boundaries but maybe bring in some emergency development corporations so that we can bridge the gap?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That really is enough.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for the creativity in his proposals, which would further benefit his constituents and Kent. I am happy to ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss those. The option that we have accepted for Kent gives us the best alignment with functional urban areas and allows us to attract inward investment that will benefit people in his constituency and right across the county. However, I am happy to discuss some of the other ideas that he has just put forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Local Amber Valley leaders and I support devolution, but we are incredibly concerned about the decision to split Amber Valley between two unitary authorities, particularly because the option selected was not subject to public consultation. It also places a huge burden on Amber Valley borough council during the reorganisation, with double the amount of work. I am thinking about my constituents and their absolute right to excellent public services throughout the process, and the Secretary of State will know, through my many representations, of my concern about capacity to deliver the change. My local authority is considering the next steps, and the Secretary should know that that includes all options available to them. I am pleased to hear about the capacity funding—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a question, as indeed do all Members, as quickly as possible, because this is taking a very long time.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the lion’s share of the capacity funding for Derbyshire will go to Amber Valley, given that we are the most affected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

What are you doing in Essex?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Francois!

[Mr Francois]

He did not make a—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s decision, which brings an end to decades of destabilising indecision across Warwickshire, and I thank the Government for being decisive. The decision, which has cross-party support from four of the five districts in Warwickshire, will empower North Warwickshire to focus on growth, investment and funding to meet the needs of our communities, and allow us to be the masters of our own destiny. A previous report raised concerns about sustainability—this was before the Government’s generous settlement under fair funding—so can the Secretary of State reassure my residents that financial assessments were done in full before considering the options?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Department arranged an official briefing for Members about what was going to happen to their communities, but Leicestershire Conservative MPs were not invited. I have seen the schedule, and we are not on the list. I thought it was a rule of this House that MPs should be told everything at the same time, yet some appear to be more equal than others. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what redress we can seek?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Oliver Ryan.

[Michael Payne]

—Michael Payne.

I simply seek to correct the record. I should have, when I made a contribution in the statement, drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Gedling borough councillor. I seek through this point of order to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already.

I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is an incredible honour to speak today in this debate on the life and legacy of Jo Cox, and particularly challenging to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and her incredibly moving words. It just makes those of us who were not Jo’s best friends incredibly jealous. We all can recognise that close sisterhood that we have with our closest friends. Like everyone else, I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) not just for securing today’s debate, but for the amazing, wonderful sister that she is. I thank her for how she has welcomed in later intakes of MPs and, as somebody who came to the House in 2024, the latest intake of MPs in particular.

Legacy is often a concept that it is hard to distinguish, but with Jo, her legacy is tangible because of how she chose to conduct herself and lead her life. It has had a lasting impact not just on this place, as we have heard today, but in our communities up and down the country and around the globe. I will never forget the first constituency Labour party event I attended. Fortunately, it was not a CLP meeting on a Friday night, because perhaps I would not have gone back. [Laughter.] It was an event for women that Jo hosted on her boat before she was elected. True to who she was, it provided an inclusive, empowering and welcoming space for women like me who were just seeking to understand how we could bring change to our communities. Today, more than ever, we need to be the change by creating those spaces, when so much in the political discourse is desperately seeking to intimidate and put off women and minority groups.

Jo lived by the words she expressed in her maiden speech that we have heard so often today, that

“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

It can be hard to hold on to that truth, given the division and vitriol we have seen expressed on our streets, in our media and online, but hold on to it we must as forces seek to polarise us further away from each other in a most un-British way.

Like Jo’s constituency of Batley and Spen, Hyndburn is a diverse community with a significant number of people who come from, or who still have connections with, Kashmir. It is made up of a number of towns, but it is a place where people often feel ignored and forgotten, and where the simple blaming of others can be a tempting answer to the far more complex questions that we know our society faces. In many ways we are more connected than we have ever been but, just as profoundly, we are more disconnected than ever before. An Office for National Statistics survey in 2025 found that about 40% of 16 to 29-year-olds have felt lonely at times—and that is while they supposedly have the world in their back pockets or in their hands.

I believe that the sense of feeling alone has increased. For connection to bring people together, heal mistrust, clean up untruths, and identify the commonalities and common purpose between people and groups, it must be grounded in relationships, which the online world does not enable well. People hide behind a keyboard or anonymity and say things that cause a huge amount of hurt and harm, while bots and algorithms push misinformation and disinformation, with no regard for facts. Owing to the growth of social media, everyone can now be publishers; we can share our opinions from behind a keyboard, even opinions that we do not truly believe. With the development of AI, we can also all be producers. However, unity and authentic cohesion are built on listening, engaging, breaking bread together and enjoying being with each other. Much of how we communicate and trust our fellow human beings is by being there in person and showing up, to understand our differences and find our common ground.

As MPs, we all know that community can and will be messy, but it is wonderfully messy, as people from all walks of life come together and find out that, against all the evidence to the contrary—perpetuated online and through the media—our hopes, values and convictions are often similar, if not just the same. Community is where disagreements can be resolved through respectful dialogue. A healthy society and democracy depend on our ability to bridge differences, find common ground and move forward together rather than apart, but too often we see disagreements framed as moral conflicts that demand that people choose sides—all or nothing. This kind of polarisation pushes us into opposing camps, and makes it harder to recognise our shared values and aspirations.

A recent report by Hope not Hate found that the far right is seeking to engage young people, particularly boys and young men, by using platform algorithms to guide them towards increasingly insular spaces where extremist views are reinforced and intensified. The same approach exists on the far left, often targeting young women and girls. This is perpetuating a sense of polarisation on moral grounds, and targeting people who are actually just desperate for a sense of belonging and an understanding of this world. Online harm is a real threat, with nearly three quarters of my constituents recognising that boys and girls are being subjected to different forms of online harm. Tech companies must do more to protect our young people and our older people, and I urge the Government to be bold and brave in making sure that they do what is required of them, both morally and legally.

Since I became an MP, I have been supporting my constituent Debbie Duncan following the tragic death of her son Jay while he was on holiday in Tenerife. Since those heartbreaking events, Debbie has been hounded by what we have termed “tragedy trollers”—content creators seeking to capitalise on her grief by promoting disinformation, conspiracy theories and actual threats of violence. This has caused harm while Debbie has been navigating the worst nightmare that any parent can face. We must tackle the assumption that anyone is fair game online, especially those serving in public life, but Debbie did not ask for any public attention, let alone the limelight. She is now bravely campaigning for action to be taken against the trolls and the platforms to ensure that no family have to face this sort of abuse at the worst moment of their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and Jo’s wider family also faced that type of abuse following Jo’s death. It is unforgivable and morally indefensible. I hope that the Government will take action on this and the wider issue of misinformation, because the risk that the rise in misinformation poses to our communities and to our democracy cannot be ignored. We must all choose to confront the climate of hostility, division and malevolence that allows this online practice to fester, which also falsely claims to offer our young people a sense of belonging or empowerment.

If there is a key lesson we can take from Jo’s life, and there are of course many, it is that hope is not passive. It is something we build through action, service and our commitment to one another. At a time when forces seek to divide us, we must honour her legacy not simply by remembering her words, but by living them—choosing dialogue over hostility, community over isolation and common purpose over division. She believed that a fairer, kinder, more tolerant world was possible, and the most fitting tribute is to ensure that both our words and our actions take us closer to that reality.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today an honourable man has resigned, on a matter of principle, from a Government in disarray. The former Defence Secretary, as he now is, has resigned over the Government’s continuous failure to publish the defence investment plan or even to fund it. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said,

“your DIP financial settlement—which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week—falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time…it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”.

That is four years from now.

We have a war in Ukraine, continued instability in the middle east and a Department in total limbo. The man with day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the nation’s defence has just quit. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any indication that the Government will come to the House before we rise at the conclusion of business today and make a statement on this chaotic situation and who is now in charge of the Ministry of Defence? Similarly, have you been given any indication as to when the Government will now finally, at last, publish the defence investment plan, which is essential for the security of this country? As the first duty of the Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, they must surely come to the House in the next few hours and explain how this dreadful situation will somehow be rectified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not been informed that the Government wish to make a statement on this matter or on the timetable for the publication of the defence investment plan, but those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first put on the record my appreciation of the heartfelt contributions about Jo Cox today?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to highlight the case of Rasika, who is a care worker serving our community, and his wife Chamila, who is a teaching assistant in Northchurch who helps children with special educational needs and volunteers at the local church. They have built a life in my constituency for four years. They have done everything right, yet the Home Office told them and their three young children that they must return to Sri Lanka within 14 days.

The community has rallied around them and has been in absolute disbelief, with one person saying that the family are such kind, good, intelligent and hard-working people. They are frontline workers and pillars of our community, and I am horrified that this is the Britain they know and that they do not feel welcome. I have written to the Immigration Minister, but I would like advice on how I can secure urgent action from the Minister and the Home Office to reassure this family and find a resolution for their case and for the many others who may face the same situation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard her point. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I suggest she consults the Table Office to explore the other mechanisms through which she can pursue the matter further.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am always very happy to commit my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to any meeting that my hon. Friends would like. We are very keen to meet in advance of the NPPF biting.

May I also say a word about support for the music industry? My hon. Friends have talked with great passion about the music industry in their constituencies, and have shown that they care about it. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK music industry as part of our industrial strategy. We will soon publish a music plan, drawing together all that the Government are doing to support the music industry, which is a vital part of our communities, cultural heritage and local economies. That includes a £30 million music growth package over three years from 2026, to support domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are also supporting the sector’s work to adopt—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before she drifts off into the music industry in any great detail, may I respectfully remind the Minister that she must confine her remarks to the Bill and the Lords amendments thereto?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I got far too excited about the music industry. Suffice it to say that the Government recognise its importance. That is why the debate about the agent of change is so important, and why we are committed to playing our part in supporting that aim.

I turn to the Bill and the amendments. Let me pick up on the amendments relating to the removal of the Secretary of State’s directed powers. The Government have committed to not commencing powers to direct the establishment of non-mayoral strategic authorities for a period of two years following Royal Assent. That will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.

At the same time, we have also listened and responded to concerns expressed in the other place. We recognise that it will be important for non-rural authorities to have the opportunity to build capacity and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For that reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. We believe that that strikes the right balance, but I encourage Members from across the House to judge us by our actions.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

One hundred and five months ago, 72 people lost their lives in a tragedy that was foreseen and entirely preventable. Today we remember them. We pay tribute to their families, to the bereaved, to the survivors and to the community around the tower who have suffered so much, and we recommit to truth, justice and lasting change in Grenfell’s name.

This Bill is important, and I thank the Government for introducing it and giving it the time for what I hope will be a smooth passage. A fitting memorial is essential, and the Bill will help that to come about. The Grenfell site is the last resting place for many, and it remains a symbol of injustice. Every day when I leave my home to come to work in this place, I see the tower slowly receding from the west London skyline. I understand the fear that when the tower is gone, that stark physical reminder of unfinished business will also recede. We cannot let that happen.

I want to thank the members of the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, and the independent co-chairs, for their work in advancing a design. As the Secretary of State said, it is not easy work, but it is vital for it to remain independent of local and national Government, and to engage widely with bereaved people and survivors as the work progresses so that they feel heard and included. I know that residents are watching the deconstruction process closely. This has to be done with the utmost care and transparency—for the bereaved families, for whom the tower is sacred, and for the community who are understandably anxious about local impacts. The Bill also makes provision for the preservation, archiving or exhibition of materials from the tower and site, which is essential. Transparency and clear communication on decisions are the only way in which to ensure trust in this process, between the Department, the commission, and the bereaved and survivors.

Although the work on a memorial continues, truth and justice cannot come soon enough. Last week, the Metropolitan police team leading the investigation reassured me that they still expect to hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in the autumn, with the CPS expected to make charging decisions in spring 2027. Ministers in the Home Office have told me that the Government’s special grant will continue, to ensure that the investigation team—one of the largest in the history of the Met—will be able to make the timeline work. I ask for the Minister’s support in ensuring that representations are made to the judiciary to begin planning now for what could be extremely complex and interlocking criminal trials. A further delay for many years due to the Crown court backlog would add insult to injury for the bereaved families and survivors. The victims have waited almost nine years, and they deserve justice to come as swiftly as possible following any charging decisions.

While we await criminal justice, accountability should hit the culpable companies where it hurts them: their bottom line. I ask every procurement officer around the country to think twice before using any of the companies cited in the inquiry report. New powers under the Procurement Act 2023 give more scope for discretionary exclusion provisions. It is shocking that at least two contracts currently exist between NHS trusts and Rydon, and I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including those with subcontractors and supply chains, and to make sure that those companies are not included. It is good news that, through the Procurement Act, the Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct, and I hope that procurement officers will start using them.

Beyond truth and justice, and beyond a physical memorial, many people affected by Grenfell tell me that they want to see lasting systemic change. Can any one of us here tonight truly say that, approaching nine years after the fire, the pace and depth of change in this country have been sufficient? In a statement to this House on 22 June 2017, the then Prime Minister said that

“long after the TV cameras have gone and the world has moved on, let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 169.]

I agree with those words from Baroness May.

On 4 September 2024, the current Prime Minister said:

“In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 314.]

I agree with the Prime Minister, too. The question is how we meet those goals to ensure that reality matches the rhetoric. I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister for Building Safety and their predecessors—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is on the Front Bench—for their cross-Government work to push for change.

On 25 February, we had the first annual report from the Government on progress on implementing the inquiry’s recommendations, and I welcome the progress on construction product regulation, on evacuation plans for disabled residents, on improving the functioning of the Building Safety Regulator, and on streamlining ministerial accountability. I was really pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he is supportive of the idea of having a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons from inquests and inquiries are properly accounted for. It remains a tragic truth that if the preventing future deaths report on the Lakanal House fire in 2009 had been acted on by the then Government and the London fire brigade, Grenfell could have been prevented. Instead, recommendations sat on a shelf and an opportunity to save lives was missed. I hope that we can soon get clarity on how that mechanism can be set up.

For me, it is not about diminishing the Government’s right to accept or reject recommendations, or outsourcing accountability from Parliament to an external body. Instead, it is about ensuring that our inquiry and inquest landscape works as intended, and that we are not wasting time and money and retraumatising victims through exercises that do not lead to meaningful change. I hope the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—will herald a much-needed shift in the state’s openness and accountability when tragedies happen, and it will be all the stronger if a national oversight mechanism sits alongside it.

The London fire brigade has made important progress in learning the lessons of Grenfell, although the risk in high-rise buildings remains, as we have seen in London and around the world in recent months. I thank those officers who continue to put themselves in harm’s way to save lives. Beyond the scope of the inquiry’s recommendations, one element of Grenfell’s legacy of permanent change and a memorial for this country is the hugely significant Awaab’s law, which is now in place. It means that emergency repairs will be investigated and actioned within 24 hours, with a statutory timeframe for hazards that risk harm. I also welcome the steps to professionalise social housing management, but there is still more to do.

The pace of remediation has been too slow. Whereas other countries have completed their work, we still have close to 2,000 buildings above 11 metres where work has not begun. I welcome the target of making sure that has happened by the end of this Parliament, because the cladding scandal has trapped people in unsafe buildings for years. They are unable to sell their properties or to move their families, and are taking on more and more debt from interim fire safety measures, with developers either no longer around or unwilling to take responsibility. If the Government plan to introduce stronger requirements to get this issue sorted, they will certainly have my support.

Can we really say that, almost nine years on, social tenants have the power, agency and respect that they are entitled to? Certainly not from my casework in Kensington and Bayswater, and I expect that many Members from across the House have had a similar experience. I believe that a stronger tenant voice at a national level would help provide input into policymaking, alongside the bodies representing councils and housing associations, the regulator and the ombudsman.

That change needs to happen at a local level, too. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has repeatedly pledged to change the culture of how it engages with residents, yet last September the independent regulator found that the council’s housing department is “seriously failing”, and it has been given a C3 rating because far too many homes are not of a decent standard. Just think about that for a moment: a council that is culpable for a disastrous refurbishment in which residents were ignored, resulting in 72 deaths, is unable to meet basic standards of decency for our residents nine years later. That is not what culture change looks like in practice.

The residents on the Lancaster West estate, which surrounds Grenfell, tell a similar story. They were promised a model 21st-century housing estate in the aftermath of the fire. Progress has been made but, again, it has been too slow. They will welcome the memorial—I am sure they all want a fitting tribute—but as we pass this Bill tonight, they will ask: if the money can be found for a memorial, can it not also be found to ensure that their lives are not disrupted for years to come? RBKC has had questions to answer on this project, and residents and the Government have rightly demanded answers. Any request for additional money must be accompanied by proper oversight and accountability of RBKC and of the Lancaster West project. I am glad that council officers have confirmed that they welcome this approach, and I hope the Minister can reassure me that a solution will be found, so that residents are not left in the lurch. I thank Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the Department for Education, for their additional funding, which has enabled bespoke Grenfell services to continue. They are sorely needed.

I welcome this Bill. A fitting memorial is essential, but justice will not be served until the individuals and companies responsible for the fire and for the deaths of 72 men, women and children have their day in court. As we approach the ninth anniversary, the police investigation is still ongoing, companies implicated in the fire still have their hands on public money, hundreds of thousands of people are living in unsafe homes, and thousands of my constituents are still being let down by inadequate housing services. We need to see charges, we need to see accountability and we need to see further systemic change—not just for the bereaved survivors and for the community around the tower, but to make sure that a disaster like this never happens in our country again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Representation of the People Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.

The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.

I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.

In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way and because the choices of the British people must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Local Government Finance

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Mr Brash]

Sorry, they cancelled it; we initiated it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

We certainly need more independent oversight of the way in which Conservative councils in outer London are managing their finances. I am completely with my hon. Friend on that score, and the story of what has happened in Hillingdon is almost as bad as the situation we have faced in Harrow over the last four years. The one bright spot has been the increase in finance that the Secretary of State has delivered for Harrow. We need a review of the funding formula for Harrow, but I welcome the settlement we have had, and I look forward to continuing to persuade him of the case for more funding in Harrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield.

I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area.

It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit.

Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves.

When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers.

When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister.

Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would?

While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on what course I can take when a Member of this House repeatedly uses speeches to misrepresent members of the public, who are not able to be present to speak for themselves?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. At any point, she would have been able to seek to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It would be helpful if Members asked very short questions so that I can get them all in.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement; the measures will radically improve the system. He will be aware that over 170,000 houses in my constituency have had their freeholds purchased by Andrew Milne, who is now demanding that residents pay sums sometimes exceeding £25,000 to buy out the freeholds, and is threatening forfeiture and High Court action if they do not pay up. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ending forfeiture, but will he set out what additional steps that Government are taking to regulate rogue freeholders?

Chinese Embassy

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With due respect to the Minister, I submitted this urgent question as the shadow National Security Minister for the Security Minister in the Home Office to answer. How do we in this House get answers on the focus that we have? All questions bar two were on national security, not on planning. The more than capable and diligent Security Minister was forced to sit on the Front Bench, silenced, while his colleague attempted to answer those questions that should have been allowed to be put to him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank both Members for their points of order. As they will know—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made a salient point from his long-standing experience in the House—the choice of Minister and responding Department is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. Mr Speaker and I are frustrated and understand the frustrations that Members rightly have. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard those concerns and might reflect upon them. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is perfectly free, as is every Member, to resubmit an urgent question on this matter, but I obviously cannot comment on whether that will be granted; that will be a matter for Mr Speaker.