Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work.

The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes.

We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?

On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK.

We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV. Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?

[Steve Reed]

Let me thank the hon. Member for her and her party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft’s review. She is right to point to the growing threat; it has been evolving over recent years. She mentions the case of Nathan Gill, which underscores the nature and the gravity of that risk. Today I am accepting the report in general. We are bringing forward two provisions now, because had I not done so, a window for evasion would have been left open. We will provide a detailed response to all 17 recommendations. The amendments that we table will be open for parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. I look forward to her and her party making their views clear as we go through the process.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it

“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”.

Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.

New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.

The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.

Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.

I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.

We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I can offer hon. Members that reassurance. I have worked with DFE colleagues to consider the independent curriculum and assessment review. That review will take onboard democracy, government and law being part of the curriculum going forward. As I mentioned, citizenship will also be introduced in primary schools. As we go forward, the wide collaboration of not just this Government but devolved Governments, local authorities and others will support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical civic education. I mentioned that this is not a singular act but an ongoing task. A report of a proposed activity offered a year after the Bill becomes law will be little more than a snapshot of a much longer-term programme of work. For that reason, the Government do not support the new clause.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples.

The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.

--- Later in debate ---

I have made my position quite clear. I look to the Minister to reassure us that if the Government are going to push forward with automatic voter registration, it is at least done for everybody at the same time for the same general election, so we can have a strength of feeling that our general election is conducted in a fair and appropriate manner.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27.

Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.

International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report:

“From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”.

We should listen to the experts on this matter.

The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.

We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear.

Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it.

Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration. The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.

[Samantha Dixon]

Voter registration is the bedrock of our democracy and is foundational to participation in elections; without it, we cannot exercise our right to vote. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Electoral Commission estimates that between 7 million and 8 million eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered to vote at all. We will address that registration gap by moving towards a more automated voter registration system.

Clause 17 will create a new process of registration without application, also known as direct registration. We believe that that will enrich our democracy by making voter registration as simple and easy as possible. It creates a new duty for electoral registration officers to add those who are unregistered directly on to the electoral register without those people having to go through the process of applying to register to vote, provided that certain conditions are met. That will be the case only if the ERO is satisfied that the person should be registered, on the basis of data obtained by the ERO. Those who are directly registered will be informed through a notice that it is happening. On the points made by the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hazel Grove, they will have the right to opt out of the process during the response period.

In conjunction with regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, clause 17 will open a world of opportunities for our brilliant EROs to use new data sources, both national and local, to get unregistered but eligible citizens on to the electoral register. It should also better streamline and hopefully, in time, reduce the administrative burden on EROs—for example, by reducing the need to send invitations to register and by softening the registration surges we see around election times.

We understand that direct registration is not appropriate for every kind of voter. As mentioned, there will be exemptions for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish to be registered in this way, or that they intend to make an application for registration. There is also an exemption for those who tell the ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application. There will also be an exemption where the ERO receives an application for registration of that person during the set response period.

We are not replacing the current system of registration, but are simply providing another means of registration. That will add a new, modernised mechanism that reflects the realities of how public bodies hold and use data today, and how individuals interact with those services. Direct registration offers many opportunities, but is not an overnight process. As will be covered in relation to clauses 20 to 25, it will take time to explore and test different data sources to ensure that they best identify eligible citizens. It will also take time to pilot and test the overall effectiveness of direct registration. There are significant opportunities here to move towards a more automated registration system that narrows the registration gap and builds a fuller and fairer democracy.

Amendment 26 proposes a new condition that must be met before the ERO registers someone without an application—that the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching. I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, and of course share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to ensuring that only eligible individuals are registered.

Under the Bill, an ERO must directly register someone only if they are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. We are robustly exploring and will rigorously test different Government datasets that could be used to aid EROs in their new direct registration duties. As part of that, we are exploring which datasets will provide EROs with sufficient assurance to determine that a person is entitled to be registered. We do not agree with specifying a minimum number of datasets that should be used to determine someone’s existence. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, there is the potential for one or two robust and well-tested datasets to provide sufficient assurance. In those cases, it would be unnecessary and inefficient to require an ERO to consider further datasets, so I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 18 is similar to clause 17, but focuses on a new process of direct alteration. It aims to improve the accuracy of our electoral registers in the simplest and easiest way possible for the voter. It will create a new process of alteration without application, also known as direct alteration. It creates a new duty for EROs to update people’s name or address details in their electoral register, where data shows that those have changed. Just like with direct registration, those whose details are directly altered will be informed through a notice that that is happening, and they will have the right to object during the response period.

The clause, alongside regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, will enable EROs to use new data sources to identify people whose registration details are incorrect and update their entries without those people having to submit an application of alteration. That will help the accuracy and integrity of the register, and will make things easier for EROs, who might otherwise contact voters at the wrong addresses or using the wrong names. It will also help to prevent people from missing out on their right to vote, by ensuring that the right details are recorded for them.

As mentioned previously, there will be an exemption for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish their entry to be altered in that way. There are other exemptions, including for those who tell their ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application.

We are not removing the ability of individuals to contact their ERO to update their own details. Clause 18 will create a new, modern process that will be tested and iterated over time. It will allow EROs to use data in a common-sense way to improve the accuracy of the electoral register.

Clause 19 introduces schedule 2 and makes further provision in connection with clauses 17 and 18 for registration without an application and for the alteration of certain registers without an application. Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 to allow for direct registration and alteration, and to build safeguards into the process.

I draw the Committee’s attention, in particular, to paragraphs 16 to 19 of schedule 2, which aim to ensure that if a person is an overseas elector or is applying to be one, a registration without application is disregarded if they did not ask for it to be made and they are still eligible to be an overseas elector. The clause aims to reduce the risk of a new entry being created without an application, which could then invalidate the registration or declaration of an overseas elector. That is needed to ensure that overseas electors do not inadvertently lose their right to their status as an overseas elector—for example, in the unlikely event that an ERO directly registers that person at an address at which they are not resident, and they miss the registration notice while they are overseas. We think the risk of that happening incorrectly is low, but we want to include safeguards in case it happens.

Amendment 27 proposes that direct registration and alteration duties for EROs—meaning registering someone or altering their registration details without that person submitting an application—and other, related provisions should not commence until after the Secretary of State has published an independent review. That review would look into the steps needed to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizens being directly registered. The amendment involves inserting a requirement for a review into clause 80, the Bill’s commencement clause.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.

The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.

Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.

When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.

That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.

The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that

“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.

We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,

“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,

and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.

We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.

Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.

We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.

I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.

There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.

This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.

We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.

Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.

On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.

We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

Q Mr Marshall, to follow up on the point you made about the canvass, the current situation is that the canvass is scrapped every 10 years in Northern Ireland and you have to begin again, so the new measures are welcome.

David Marshall: They are very welcome indeed.

Cahir Hughes: To echo what David said, canvass reform is essential in Northern Ireland, so that measure is welcome. Automatic registration will also play a significant part in improving access to electoral services in Northern Ireland, and we are working closely with David on the practicalities of that.

David touched on the electoral administrative side of the Bill, as you would expect, but I want to highlight something in relation to the political finance side. The rules on political donations for registered political parties are slightly different in Northern Ireland, in that parties can accept donations from permissible Irish sources. The Bill says that that will continue, and that principle was enshrined in an agreement between the British and Irish Governments back in 2006, to allow Irish donors to give to parties here, in line with the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Obviously, the secondary legislation will provide the detail on how this will operate in practice, but we can already see some difficulties in checking the permissibility of donations. For example, with company donations from a UK company, we can go on to Companies House and check the donation, as can the treasurer of a political party or the elected representative who is taking the donation.

Company registration in Ireland is very different, and it would therefore not be as straightforward to verify the true nature of a donation, if it comes from a company. Not only would that put the treasurer of a party in a difficult situation, but we as the regulator are also required to check 50% of the donations that are reported to us in Northern Ireland, so that will make compliance tricky for us. We wait to see the secondary legislation, but that is a concern for us in relation to the political finance aspects of the Bill.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Q My question is about the calling out process in polling stations, which clause 46 will end. In practice, does calling out still happen in elections, bearing in mind that voter ID has been needed in Northern Irish elections for the last 25 years? Do you see this as being a significant change, or will—as I suspect—everyone involved in elections just roll with this and possibly forget it even happened?

David Marshall: This is one of those changes that should probably have been brought in when photographic voter ID was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2002 But frankly, whenever it was brought in, calling out in polling stations was removed in Great Britain as part of the introduction of voter ID there. The Government have seen fit to make it equivalent across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which I very much welcome. We have a system for personation called “photographic ID”, and we do not need another secondary system. If necessary, we can manage any issues or concerns in polling stations by talking to polling agents at that point.

Cahir Hughes: Historically, the link was made with polling agents. When photographic ID was introduced, polling agents thought that it was very important that they still had a role to identify personation. I suspect that the legacy issues in Northern Ireland and distrust between parties and communities may have played a part in that. However, as we have discussed, photographic ID is very well established in Northern Ireland, so people are familiar with it. It provides the level of security that you would expect in polling stations. Of course, polling agents will continue to be allowed in the polling station.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

Q For the record, I met Dr Marshall and Mr Hughes when they gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 29 January 2025. I just want to pick up on a number of recommendations they made to that Committee about the need for changes in the Northern Ireland canvass process and several other related matters. Do you think that those are being appropriately addressed by the Bill, as it stands?

Cahir Hughes: We made the need for canvass reform very clear to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as it is essential. We think that a significant amount of money is spent removing 1.4 million electors off the electoral register, only for them to ask to be put back on again. Canvass reform is essential for that not to happen in 2030, and we welcome that being addressed in the Bill, including by the provisions on automatic registration, which should make things easier for voters as well. I am sure that David will touch on this, but he has a rich source of data available to him to manage the electoral register and to get people on the register, which is very welcome.

The one thing not in the Bill—frankly, I was not expecting it to be—is the issue of co-option, which we flagged to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is where elected Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly or those in a local council can be replaced through the co-option system when a vacancy arises. The Bill does not address that issue, but it is something that we will monitor ahead of the combined polls next year. If need be, we will report on it, as we statutorily have to after every election.

David Marshall: On canvass reform, one important step will be that we take cognisance of the possibility of automatic registration in the context of how it is implemented. As Cahir indicated, we have a rich source of data, and every year we write to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently on the register but could come on to it, but only about 30% then go ahead and register to vote.

When we hold that high-quality public sector data—national insurance data, health registration data—we would like the ability to write to those people, turn it the other way and say, “We are going to register you to vote unless you tell us otherwise.” That ought to be part of the reform of the canvass in Northern Ireland: including some element of automatic registration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

What you are saying is very interesting, and I will reflect on it. As we go through the Bill process, I think it will become clear that the Government have considered some of the points that you have raised, but thank you for raising them.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I should declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. JRRT is one of the biggest funders of the democracy sector, so a number of the witnesses this afternoon will have received grants from JRRT, including the Politics Project and, I think, Dr Mycock, for a research project.

I strongly agree that we are in a moment of crisis for our democracy. An awful lot of things that I would have liked to see in the Bill are not there. You talked about the opportunity that this presents. Particularly looking through the lens of trust in politics and participation in our elections, what does your organisation, or you as an academic, believe could have been in the Bill that would have had a positive impact on trust in politics?

Harriet Andrews: The biggest thing in terms of trust in democratic institutions is the way that democratic institutions engage with the public, and with young people specifically. We specialise in connecting young people and politicians. We have evidence that we can systematically improve democratic trust, which is a fantastic thing to be able to do—not many people can do that—but that is done through loads and loads of conversations between young people and politicians, and there is not really a substitute for that kind of work. I do not know whether that is the role of this Bill, but it is definitely the role of every Member of Parliament. We also need to think about investment in places such as schools and youth groups, and ask whether they are being supported to engage with democratic institutions.

The other thing to mention is that a lot of people are really uncertain at the moment about whether they are allowed to engage with democratic institutions as part of their youth work or as schools, because they are worried about issues around impartiality. I would focus on really clear guidance on impartiality, partly so that people feel a lot more comfortable about what they can do. They can do a lot, but lots of people are scared about engaging with their local council or councillor on a local issue because they are worried about political bias. More training and support around that is needed.

Andy Mycock: I fully agree with everything that Hattie said. Contact—building a relationship at a very early age—is a critical part of this. By the time you get to secondary school, a lot of that good work is already past its time of efficacy. Primary school, when young people are socialising and their brains are growing, is proving to be, in all different aspects of growing up, the most important time. There is a stark lack of focus on primary school interventions. Much of what happens focuses on secondary school, when young people are overloaded; they are going through significant change in their lives—biologically, socially and educationally. Stretch the civic journey. Give it time to mature over time. Think about how you support young people after the age of enfranchisement, whether it is 16 or 18.

To go back to the Minister’s question, our work in Wales highlighted another thing—the voter journey. In Wales we found a lot of focus, in Government and other programmes, on getting young people to get on the electoral register and to know how to vote, but that did not get them to the ballot box. The principal reason was that they were not educated about political parties—what those parties stood for. This is not to open up the old debate about indoctrination, but young people simply did not know what the political parties stood for—they did not know how to read the manifestos, so they stayed at home.

I urge all the parties to move beyond this idea of the fears of indoctrination. The internet age has changed things. You cannot protect young people from political discourse on the internet. Our survey data is already starting to pick up that young people, particularly young men, are increasingly prone to misinformation and to populist ideas. If you do not socialise young people, so that they understand politics before they become enfranchised—whatever the age—it is likely that they will socialise themselves, or will socialise themselves in peer groups that may not be the healthiest in terms of democracy.

I would think strongly about the idea of the voter journey, and about things like automatic voter registration, or giving young people voter authority certificates at the age of 16. If they have a national insurance number, why not give them that certificate so that they have the document and do not have to look for it? Walk them through polling booths: get them used to the idea that these are not alien places. For those who come from middle-class families, it is likely that their parents will take them there the first time to vote. For those coming from maybe disadvantaged or disengaged families, it is highly likely that they will not.

Lastly, learn from other places. Australia has a wonderful celebration around elections where they have a democracy sausage, which you will have heard of now increasingly. We might not be a nation of sausages, but we are a nation of cakes. Why not think about the democracy bake? Have civil society organisations outside polling stations—turn voting into a celebratory act, so that young people feel that that first experience is positive, and that it is not a threatening environment for them to go to again.

[Warinder Juss]

Q Since being elected as an MP, I have spent a lot of my time going into schools and engaging with young people, talking to them and having Q&A sessions. The level of engagement that they show is phenomenal, and the younger they are the more engaged they seem to be—even asking me questions like, “Why did you join the Labour party?”

My assessment from all this has been that if those young people were allowed to vote at 16 they would be very competent in contributing to democracy, and that it would be a great idea for them to be engaged earlier in politics, and to have had those conversations earlier. A witness in the previous panel said that the earlier somebody votes, the more likely they are to carry on voting. I have two questions. First, do you think my assessment is correct? Secondly, do you think that the ability to vote early is one important step we can take to make sure that we have that engagement, and bring democracy into play?

Harriet Andrews: Yes, I do think your assessment is correct. I think young people are really keen to engage in all sorts of social and political issues. They want to have a voice—they want to be heard, right? They are just like everybody else, and they have lots to say. They are exploring the world; they have not heard something for the fifth or sixth time, they have heard it for the first time, so it is more exciting. That is something that we find a lot.

There are some hopeful reforms potentially coming in the curriculum assessment review. They have talked about making citizenship compulsory in primary schools, which really plays into that idea of starting early. The more that you do earlier, and the more you can build these skills over time and make them part of what is happening, the less of a mad rush you have to get everybody ready at a certain point. That is really positive.

One of the things missing in that education reform is, particularly, teacher training. This stuff is complicated, and teachers need support. When they have been surveyed, teachers have said that they feel really underprepared to do this work; they really want to do the work, but they want that support. That is one thing that really needs some attention. The other is the role of Ofsted—asking, “Is Ofsted taking this work seriously? Does it have a home, and does it have a place?” I know that that is not the role of this Committee, but some of the levers to make votes at 16 a real success sit with both DCMS and the DfE.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Q I am interested in what you said about the open register. The current proposal is to change it from opt-out to opt-in, but would you just like to scrap the whole thing?

Professor Bernal: I would like to scrap it. Going from opt-out to opt-in is great for the new people coming in, particularly with automatic voter registration and the votes at 16. However, there are millions of people who did not realise what they were opting in to—or what they would have opted out of—who are still on the register. If this is going to be retrospective, and you are going to say to everybody, “Do you want to be in after all?”, maybe that would help, but it would be simpler and better just to get rid of it.

We have to think very carefully about why the open register exists in the first place, and what use it is actually being put to. The uses are primarily commercial. In the current era, so many other forms of data are available to anyone wanting commercial use of data—we should leave it to them. What we need is as clear and simple a database as possible, with a single function to support our elections. That way, we get more security and privacy, and people will be more likely to trust it.

[Lisa Smart]

Q Mr Mundell, I refer you to my earlier declaration of interest as a director of JRRT, from which some of the witnesses have received funding for their work, including the two professors on this panel.

My question is about automatic voter registration and some of the civil liberties and privacy issues that we should considering as we look at this legislation. Can you help us think through some of the really important questions we should be asking, bearing in mind that, as you rightly say, a lot of the detail will be worked through in secondary legislation? What things should we be thinking about to make sure that we protect the population’s civil liberties and keep privacy where it should be?

Professor Bernal: I should outline my perspective from the beginning. When Toby asked me to come into this project, my initial thought was, “I don’t want this, because of the privacy things—I’m a data privacy specialist and that’s what I work on.” However, when I was talking to him, I began to be persuaded by thinking about this as a way to get greater integrity in the database. Privacy is not about hiding information but making sure that the right people get the right information at the right time, and with appropriate permissions and consents.

As a result, the first thing we should think about is: what will the database on which people are registered be used for? What functions will it be put to? Who is going to have access to it? What are they going to be able to do with that data? That is something that we should be doing anyway, regardless of whether we are bringing in automatic voter registration. We should be thinking about those things, particularly in an era when electoral interference is a known factor and happens in lots of different ways, and we should be working out the way to make things secure. As I see it, automatic voter registration actually gives us an opportunity to do that, because it means that we need to think about having a properly coherent and secured database. As we do so, we will think, “Who’s going to have access to this? What are they going to be able to do with it?”

One issue is that political parties will want access to this data, but they should have to produce a report on what they have done with this data and how, including who they have given it to. We need only think back to Peter Mandelson and what he was doing with his data—giving it to people who he perhaps should not have—to see that we really need to keep a proper grip on what is happening to the data. That would solve most of the civil liberties questions about this. If we make sure that we know exactly what is happening to the data, and if we have a good set of controls over who manages and runs it, and who has access to it, you do not have the problem.

The only civil liberties question left is a rather separate one: should people be able to not be registered to vote? However, that is a rather different question beyond the scope of what we are talking about here, because we have decided in this country generally that people should reply to electoral requests and so on. That is the only one, and I do not think that is a question that automatic voter registration is a problem for.

Professor James: I would draw the Committee’s attention to what happens to the electoral register at the moment in terms of, as Paul has set out, the issue of the open register potentially being a security risk, but also who has access to the marked and full registers. There is currently no requirement, as I understand it, for electoral registration officers to keep a record of who requests and uses those records. That could be introduced. The Electoral Commission could then provide a report on exactly who is accessing those registers and for what purposes.

Political parties, for example, are entitled—and this is correct—to have access to electoral registers so they can reach out to voters, but how parties themselves use the registers is an important question.

[The Chair]

If Members have no further questions, I thank both witnesses for their evidence and we will prepare for the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Harry Busz, Councillor Peter Golds and Richard Mawrey KC gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Obviously, you are expressing your own view there.

Richard Mawrey: I have investigated the Australians, at their invitation. I am with Peter Golds on the point that modernising the law ought to take a consolidating statute. We do that with a lot of things, like the companies Acts and so on. It would be a new consolidating statute, as the last one was in 1983 and we are now 43 years on. That opportunity should be taken, first, to rationalise all forms of malpractice that are offences and corrupt practices; and secondly, to set up a coherent system for trying electoral disputes, because the present system is hopeless. Various proposals on how to do that have been put forward.

This is not the Bill in which to do it, but this Bill should not be saying, “Well, we have done that. We can park that for the next 10 years.” It ought to be a staging post in thinking, “Right, let us sit down and produce a coherent statute that modernises not simply electoral offences, but how we deal with them.” That is what I would counter. I agree that this Bill is not the one in which to do it, but it should not be treated as the end of the road for 10 years.

Harry Busz: As an organisation, we believe there are lots of positive steps forward in the Bill. Certain aspects around automatic voter registration, and improving the performance and accuracy of the register, are really important. For administrators, such like the extension of the postal vote deadlines will enable people to return their postal votes in a timely fashion. We also think that the issue of protecting staff and including them, as well as campaigners, is really important. Since the voter ID regulations came in, there has been a bit of a shift in the way the public views presiding officers and poll clerks in polling stations, as they now have the role of gatekeeper, having to essentially turn someone away from voting if they do not believe there is a likeness with their ID or similar.

There are areas that could go further, particularly around voter ID. At this moment in time, there is an issue where if somebody does not have a form of ID on the day, unlike in other countries, we have no off-ramp, whether through attestation or vouching, so that the person is still able to participate in the election on the day. The question we see as the most challenging is how these procedures will be done on the ground, particularly inside polling stations and for administrators. As long as there is the ability to increase funding and support for the council departments running the elections on the ground, there are lots of positive steps.

[Lisa Smart]

Q Democracy Volunteers has been a grantee of JRRT—there are some witnesses who are not grantees, but not Democracy Volunteers. I am grateful to Councillor Golds for outlining that family voting is not happening in only one community, which is an important point that I hope many people, particularly those who seek to divide our communities and will use any tool they can to do so, will listen to.

I have a question for all three of our witnesses. It pulls on a thread all of you have raised: the inconsistency around enforcement—whether that is local authorities, returning officers, presiding officers or different police forces enforcing things in different ways, or election law finally making it through to court should something need to be tried. I accept that this might not be the piece of legislation to address those inconsistencies, but can you say more about measures you think would be helpful to ensure that election law is applied fairly to all elections across the whole country?

Harry Busz: I would start by taking the family voting point that you specifically addressed. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is something that we saw across more than 100 constituencies at the last general election, and it is something which, as Councillor Golds said, affects all communities. It is a really important issue for lots of different people that we ensure they have the right to a secret ballot.

In terms of those inconsistencies, the areas in which we see a really positive response when family voting might be going on are those where presiding officers and poll clerks can actively step in and prevent it if they are in a less busy polling station— which obviously becomes a bit of a postcode lottery. It also depends on whether the council has the funding and the staff to have a meet-and-greet or a third person in the polling station whose job is specifically to do that work.

Different pieces of election infrastructure are used from council to council, and where polling stations can be set up so that polling booths are separate, that is very helpful in preventing some of these issues. Whether it is that or around accessibility, with all of these aspects, the really important thing we have found is that when the council feels supported—both financially and with the infrastructure they need to run elections inside polling stations—you get much better outcomes.

All staff really want to do their job well and want to step in and prevent these kinds of things, but if they do not have the funding to have a third member in there, or if they do not have the correct equipment, it becomes a lot more difficult.

Councillor Golds: I have a big thing about protecting people, safety and security—and that is everybody. That includes candidates, election staff and the voters themselves. First, I am interested in the nomination process. My belief is that if you are nominated as a candidate, you are nominated as a candidate. The address issue is something from 50 years ago—the 1973 Act, which requires your address to be public.

I spoke about this on the security of councillors, and had an email exchange with a delightful lady in Leicestershire who had heard me on Leicestershire radio. She had expressed concern for years that she gets a bus to go to work, and at her bus stop were her three local councillors’ names, addresses and phone numbers. She thought this was wrong. This is still part of the Act. When we tried to get security for councillors to protect our addresses, we were told it was very difficult. It should not be that, if you are standing for election, your address has to be public. I think it would be terribly easy to change.

I am intrigued by the issue of candidates standing and withdrawing a nomination. One of my ideas—and I think about this very carefully—is that if a candidate is standing for a political party and they withdraw their nomination, then on nomination day the proposer and seconder, or the registered political party, should have the right to substitute another candidate, so that you do not have somebody trying anything ridiculous. We also have to look at expenditure. There are too many stories that live on the internet of extraordinary issues. You are quite right to look at it, and it needs to be tightened. We have spoken about the secrecy of the ballot.

We then come to enforcement and intimidation. I do not know how we protect people. Eighteen months ago, I had an extraordinary day at the Home Office where a group of councillors went. I was the only male councillor there. We were promised an hour and a half to discuss problems. Three and a half hours later, Home Office officials asked, “Do you want to continue?” because of what women of all political parties were saying to them. This included a female councillor whose husband had given her a purple coat, and she had appeared on television wearing it. A local nutcase said that her husband was a member of the Illuminati and a paedophile, and had gone through her address on Companies House, and published his company address and the fact that he was a school governor. This is a fact of life that can be found. If you look, every council cycle I have ever been involved in—Rallings and Thrasher always talk about this—we get women elected who serve one term, not lots. This persecution must stop.

Finally, you have to do something about the intimidation of people going to vote and crowds at polling stations—that is growing and growing. Everybody has the right to walk quietly down a street and into a polling street, and then to pass their vote as they do. I have seen observers from the European Union and the Commonwealth look at British elections, and they are staggered to see mobs of people standing outside polling stations, pushing and shoving. Those are simple things that you could look at, and I believe you would help voters, candidates and, ultimately, yourselves.

Richard Mawrey: We are back to the problem of enforcement. In quite a lot of countries, every polling station is attended by at least one burly constable who keeps an eye on things and acts as a sort of enforcer, and the great thing is that they do not have any connection with the local authority.

The problem with staff at polling stations is that they are all necessarily connected with the local authority, and it is very easy for people to convince themselves that the ruling group—so to speak—on the local authority is conniving so that voters are likely to vote for them. In most cases, it is complete and utter nonsense, but it would greatly strengthen confidence in the voting process to have somebody independent—it does not matter whether it is a policeman or anyone else—at a polling station who is prepared to call out intimidation, family voting or whatever it is.

At the moment, people are not confident because they perceive—rightly or wrongly—that the rules exist, but that the rules are being broken and nobody cares. As Peter Golds said, it does not require much imagination to see how any of that can be blown up in social media to a result that is very unfortunate for the electoral process.

Interestingly, most of the arguments being put forward today are the same as those that would have been put forward in the Public Bill Committee on the Ballot Act 1872, when the secret ballot was introduced. It was introduced to stop all the sort of abuses of the electoral process that had been occurring up to that time. Some 150 years on, we are still trying to deal with it.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Q Harry, you mentioned earlier that you have evidence to show the extent to which people are being turned away is greater than in the official statistics. Can you share what you think the actual number is?

Mr Mawrey, I am wondering about the degree to which personation takes place, and how much of that is a problem. We are hearing other people express doubts about the use of ID and whether this is robust enough. To what extent is that a real issue?

Harry Busz: On the data that we have collected, we will always have two observers inside polling stations who are observing together, because they will have more time to see whether people come in, see a sign, turn around and go out, or whether somebody is stopped by a teller or an extra member of staff who might be directing them to the polling desk. We see a number of people who are turned away from voting initially, but we do not collect data on whether those people come back in the same way that the Electoral Commission does.

At the general election in 2024, we saw that 1.37% of all voters were initially turned away, compared with the Electoral Commission’s figure of 0.25%. We believe the main reason for that difference is that we are seeing other voters who do not get to the actual presiding officer’s desk. The Electoral Commission’s data was collected from the ballot paper refusal list, which the presiding officer has to sit down and sign when a voter has that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Do any other witnesses wish to add anything?

Dr Power: I would only add that I concur. The one slight concern I have with the “know your donor” requirements is overly burdensome regulation. The thresholds for conducting those requirements should align with the thresholds for the person having to undertake them, because you could end up with a situation where a regulated entity is looking at three different thresholds. I would want the Bill to be clear that these align, and I know that the Electoral Commission shares that concern.

[Lisa Smart]

Q In the interests of full transparency, Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption are both grantees of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, of which I am a director.

You talked about reducing discretion, and there are proposed amendments that would clarify who is no longer a permissible donor. I agree that clarifying some of that would be helpful for political parties. However, may I invite all the witnesses to talk about what is currently in the Bill on money coming in from overseas? The Government have been very clear that they want to take steps to tackle foreign interference, and we are looking at the recommendations from Philip Rycroft’s review. Could you say whether the provisions in the Bill are robust enough to stop foreign money being funnelled through UK entities? If not, what steps would you recommend to tackle that?

Duncan Hames: We certainly welcome the valiant efforts that officials in the Minister’s Department have been making to address this issue, and there are some welcome steps, particularly on unincorporated associations, to ensure that they are not used as a back door. However, we do not have any prohibitions in this country on people who are not entitled to vote in this country owning companies that trade here. Therefore, it would be entirely possible for someone who you all agree should not be allowed to donate money in British politics to none the less acquire a company that does that job for them, which would comply with the provisions as currently set out in the Bill.

Our view is that, hard as we might try, so long as people are determined to find a way, it is very hard to be absolutely confident that you have shut this door. That is why we think the lack of any kind of cap whatsoever on how much any one person can put into British politics means that the risk of money entering British politics and getting round these controls is uncontained. We would argue that these measures need to be accompanied by some kind of donations cap.

Dr Susan Hawley: It is absolutely a risk. I believe the Rycroft review is looking at whether you make sure that the regulated sector and financial institutions in the UK are playing their role. There would definitely be scope for a joint intelligence unit where they could share transactions that appear suspicious with law enforcement. Obviously, that relates to whether the enforcement set-up is sufficient and whether the laws are sufficient. In relation to enforcement, this also comes down to having proper donor declarations and beefing up the section 54A donor declaration to address some of those risks and make sure that the money is not coming via permissible donors in the UK, but from abroad.

Dr Power: We also have regulated and unregulated periods at which different levels of scrutiny apply to donations to different regulated entities. Of course, some of those entities are less regulated or unregulated during unregulated periods.

As a thought experiment, if I were a malign foreign actor, I would probably focus on the unregulated periods as the times when I could use my money wisely, as it were. There is a good case for considering, within reason, how we can move towards a system with year-round regulations, taking into account the importance of a vibrant democracy, such that we do not end up with money being spent and donated during relatively unregulated times.

[Lisa Smart]

I am working with the Public Bill Office on an amendment that extends the regulated period. Given the narrow scope of the Bill, that is a way of thinking about that.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q In the interests of full transparency, I have worked closely with Duncan and Susan and knew both of them prior to being elected to this place. I have a quick question that builds on some of the areas we have already talked about. Susan, on the point of how we put into practice checks that could look at people who may be connected to somebody who is politically exposed or to a high-risk jurisdiction, you said that the Bill has good “know your donor” checks but that they need to be strengthened further. How would those be delivered in practice?

Dr Susan Hawley: The Electoral Commission needs to come up with robust guidance on that. It needs to look at industry standards from the regulated sector to tackle money laundering. I want to come back to the donor declaration, because that is also critical to this. We have heard from law enforcement that it is not clear to them that the proceeds of crime are not allowed as donations, for instance. If you have a situation where proceeds of crime can be donated, that is pretty extraordinary. We need a robust section 54A that puts some onus on the donor and makes a false declaration a criminal offence.

I do not know whether that answers your question, Lloyd, or whether you wanted me to talk more about “know your donor”, but I think they complement each other. You have “know your donor”, which is about what parties do, but also the donor declaration, so that you are putting some onus on the donor to actually be honest about where that money comes from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I find it interesting that most of the people who we consider to be academics, and have made their life’s profession the integrity of the election system, are not in favour of it, but the Government are choosing to go ahead with it anyway. We will look at that further in line-by-line scrutiny. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I thank the Minister, who has been battling valiantly throughout the day to participate in our proceedings.

It is clear from all the evidence we have heard today that all the witnesses welcome a number of the steps in the Bill, but a number of them expressed disappointment that the scope had been written so narrowly and that it does not stand up to the moment of crisis and peril that our democracy faces. If the Government think that first past the post is the right system, why not have a national commission on the voting system to test that thesis?

Samantha Dixon: The Government believe that the voting systems that we use to elect our representatives are really at the heart of our democracy; they are of fundamental importance. We welcome views and feedback on how democracy can be improved. I am grateful for the interest that you have shown in this particular area, but I can confirm that we are content with the voting system that we currently use in general elections, and we have no plans to establish such a commission.

For UK parliamentary elections, we believe that the first-past-the-post system establishes a really strong link between the constituency and the representative. Although it may not be perfect, we believe it is well understood by the electorate and the communities that we represent. When a seat needs to be filled in Parliament or a council, for example, that link between the representative and those they represent is important. First past the post is appropriate for that system.

There are occasions for other voting systems for wider electorates, and this Bill will make provision for them. For example, for a mayoral election, we are in the process of bringing forward legislation to revert that system back to supplementary voting. When it is a broader constituency—a mayoral area that may cover many constituencies—we accept that that voting system is more appropriate. But at this stage, for council wards and parliamentary constituencies, we remain of the view that first past the post is the best system.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I do not want to test the patience of the Chair by getting into the weeds on my favourite voting system, but other voting systems exist in different parts of the United Kingdom, and we heard from witnesses today that they work perfectly well. My next question is, why is revenue the best measure of whether a company is a fit organisation to be donating to political parties given that we heard from a number of witnesses today that profit or indeed a percentage of tax paid might be a better measure?

Samantha Dixon: The view of the Government is that companies that pass all of the other tests and want to donate to a political party may on occasion be in a position where they are not making profit. For example, if they are taking investment decisions across a particular year, which mean that they are in a non-profit situation but their revenue is still working, they should not be excluded from donating to the political system. That is why the Government’s view is that the test should be revenue, as well as the other tests in place, which we feel are very robust, around UK residency of the persons of particular interest but also the UK headquarters rules and the “know your donor” rules.

The raft of measures that we are introducing make it far more difficult, notwithstanding the evidence and views of those we have heard today. We feel that it brings in protections that currently are not there and will protect our electoral system. It may be that Philip Rycroft comes forward with measures around this, which we will listen to as well as the evidence that we have heard today.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I have one final comment. If Donald Trump took all the assets of his companies, split them between him and his children and moved all the money into his UK-based company, which runs golf courses, there would be billions, or hundreds of millions, of pounds. Given how the legislation is written currently, I think that that company could perfectly legitimately donate to any political party. I would venture to say that the Government do not want that and might think about how legislation could be amended to address that.

Samantha Dixon: We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.

[David Simmonds]

Q I have a brief question about clause 47 on the voter identification requirements. We have heard quite a lot on the point about bank cards. I am mindful that the Government’s own MoneyHelper website sets out how to get a bank card if you do not have any ID at all and also if you are of no fixed address; I know that is routinely used in electoral processes to establish your entitlement to vote in a particular place.

Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?

Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we start, do any Members wish to declare any interests in connection with the Bill?

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I know some of the witnesses through non-parliamentary activity. When they sit down, I will explain to the Committee my connection to them.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Thank you, Chair; that is very kind of you.

Welcome, Ms Yule. The other witnesses would argue that the Government’s intention is to make voting easier and extend the franchise. I put to you the question I asked them earlier: do you consider that local authorities and chief executives have been consulted enough at this stage—notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has to go through its passage—about the proposals in the legislation? Are there burdens that you are not quite sure you can meet yet on behalf of your members?

Emily Yule: On behalf of Solace, I have been involved in lots of conversations around the development of the strategy and the Bill. We have really appreciated that collaboration and that ability to influence the design of the provisions. I always say that the devil is in the detail, so implementation is going to be really important. Chief executives, returning officers and electoral registration officers need to have a clear understanding of the timelines for implementation and the guidance, so that we can ensure consistent application of those new provisions.

In my view, consistency is what builds credibility and trust in the democratic process. At the moment, I do not think that there is huge concern among the sector that any of the items are undeliverable, but we would, of course, always ask for resourcing to be considered and any new burdens funded to put those implementation plans in place.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I am an unpaid honorary vice president of the Local Government Association; as a former councillor, I am delighted that we are hearing from the LGA.

I have two strands of questioning; one is around timing. The Bill proposes some changes around postal votes and bringing forward the dates for postal votes. We have seen too many people miss out on their opportunity to vote because of some of the issues relating to Royal Mail that you talked about, Mr Stanyon. That is particularly acute with those living overseas for a time, whether they are serving in the armed forces or otherwise.

We all welcome the bringing forward of the dates, but can you say a little more about how many of those issues will be addressed by changing the dates for postal votes? Are there other measures—for example, allowing people to print their own ballot papers or to submit their vote at overseas embassies or consulates—that you would see as useful in enabling more people to vote?

Peter Stanyon: In terms of the practicalities of the proposed time changes, the best evidence I can give is from the last general election—the parliamentary election a couple of years ago—when you saw significant spikes in applications towards the end of the period. The date is currently 11 working days before the poll; it is proposed to move that to 14. That has meant that there is a big pinch point—not just for the electoral registration officer, who has to process the applications, but because the Elections Act has brought in additional identity checks that now need to be done for postal voters.

Currently, there is almost a perfect storm 12 and 11 days before the election with registration applications and applications for postal votes. Moving that deadline slightly further back allows the same work to be done—checking identities and physically getting the data to the printers—so that the packs can be produced and got out three days earlier than they can now. That will not go every step of the way to solving the overseas issue, because you are still talking about 12 or 11 days for ballots to go out and back; you are relying not just on Royal Mail but on overseas postal services as well. To answer the first question, this is a positive step, but it must be seen in that light—it is moving in the right direction, but it will not solve every issue that has been identified.

As far as overseas electors are concerned, this has been an age-old issue. I was thinking the other day that I have been in the industry for over 40 years—that is scary—and I have seen significant change in that time. Overseas electors have always been an issue because you are physically getting the ballot paper to them and back. It is an area that can be investigated, but we need to be careful about it. Could you have things such as printing your own ballot papers? Could you have an overseas electors constituency, which would make things slightly different? Could you have online voting, for example? I am not proposing any of those. It is an area that needs to be really thought through: what is beneficial to the elector or the voter, but also what is suitable for the system we are trying to maintain?

At the moment, the system is very paper-based and secure, but we already know it has those issues. This is not a new thing; it is just that there are far more postal voters than there used to be. The issue has been here for the whole of my career.

Councillor Bentley: All I would add to that is timetabling and making sure there is enough time for local authorities to do the printing. I am reminded that the cancellation of a whole slew of elections was proposed and then suddenly they were not, and everyone is on catch-up to make sure it all happens. They will do it, because we have brilliant staff in local government, but it is not always about them—it is about the suppliers for the printing, the paper and all the rest of it.

Provided that time is built in to make that happen, then this is a good thing. Anything that makes it easier for people to vote and participate in elections has to be a good thing. Postal voting is increasing, but we must build in the correct timetable so that authorities can get the printing done.

[Lisa Smart]

Q My second question is picking up on Ms Yule’s point about harassment. It is a very good thing to bring electoral staff into the consideration of that; I think everybody sensible would agree.

From my experience of being involved in elections, there is sometimes a lack of clarity on who to go to with problems—is it the RO or the police? Is there a uniformity in how the law is enforced? Different police forces have different experiences or resourcing levels when it comes to pursuing somebody breaking election law. Can you talk about how you see the Bill addressing any of those issues or about areas where you think it could have gone further or been clearer?

Emily Yule: Some of that is already being addressed in practical terms. There has been a lot of joint working between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the police and local returning officers to make sure that those contacts within police forces are very visible, and that you know how to get in touch and report issues.

Our members still experience a disparity in the level of engagement in different force areas, but we see a commitment coming forward to try to balance that out. There is a critical part around communication with candidates, agents and others involved in the electoral process, so that they really understand. There is a guidance element about when it is a returning officer issue, when it is a police issue and when it is an Electoral Commission issue. The Bill has an opportunity to consolidate that good practice, but it is emerging and we have started to see it coming through in recent elections. As the specific, dedicated officers within police forces build up knowledge of electoral process, offences and issues, that will only increase.

Councillor Bentley: I pointed out the issue of harassment in my first answer, by which I meant harassment of both candidates and officers. Clarity of the law is very important, as is people understanding what is an offence. It is important for the police to have that clarity as well. You do not have police officers here, at least not in this session, but they have a difficult job in working out what is just a disagreement and what is harassment. That happens in elections.

We must not forget that a lot of this will take place and has taken place on social media. We need to make sure that the law is very clear. I am in favour of the harassment bit being in the Bill—it needs to be highlighted. However, we need greater clarity about what is an offence and what is not.

[David Simmonds]

Q There are two areas I would like to explore briefly. We heard a lot from the local government family about the chaos created by elections being cancelled, then uncancelled, and so on. Part 3 of the Bill includes a number of provisions to change the arrangements for elections. We heard about police needing to be put on the rota, then cancelled, then put back on again and schools needing to close, then reopen, then close again because polling was going ahead and then not. What are your reflections on the timeline, the consequences of those changes and the considerations that go with that?

Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required?

Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change.

We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute.

On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it.

Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things.

Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in.

We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources.

Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information.

In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Q We work very closely with the Electoral Commission, but you act without fear or favour. It is important for your independence to be respected and for your objectivity as an organisation to be carried forward for the future. In your objective view, how will the proposals in the Bill progress the security of and participation in elections?

Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Minister. Broadly, we very much welcome the Bill. If I might go into a little detail about which areas, it picks up some of the crucial changes after the 2024 general election. For example, the change from 11 days to 14 days on postal voting will make a real difference, particularly in Scotland. We saw real issues about that in our post-poll report; I will not run through all of those, but the changes in the strategic review part are very important.

As I said, we very much welcome the changes on campaign finance. We would like to see that go further in the company donations area; our proposal is to use profit, not turnover, as the metric for what a company should be able to donate, and it should be able to donate that profit only once every year.

We strongly welcome the provisions on automatic voter registration, because up to 8 million eligible British voters are not on the register. That is even more important with the other part of the Bill—votes at 16—coming in. Being able to add attainers at 14 and 15, and then letting 16 and 17-year-olds be on the register, will remove a very clear barrier. Last week, we had “Welcome to Your Vote Week”, and that issue was raised quite broadly by youth organisations as yet another barrier for 16-year-olds. We also strongly welcome the elements on candidate safety, and they should all help.

Overall, it is a very strong welcome: the Bill is necessary, and it picks up some long-standing recommendations, as I have said. We also warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to repeal the SPS—the strategy and policy statement—for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. The Bill will never completely fix everything. I think this will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, so there is a never-ending process of trying to keep this going. A lot of work needs to be done outside the Bill—for example, with the police or on social media—but it will distinctly help with many of the processes involved.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I should declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. You have already answered one of my questions, which was about profit being a better measure than turnover for companies donating, so I will not ask you about that.

The Electoral Commission’s press release in response to the publication of the Bill said—I cannot remember the exact phrasing—that the Bill was welcome but that it did not go quite far enough, and that the commission would like to see more measures to tackle issues with where we are in our democracy. Trust in politics is at a very low level, and trust in our democracy is an important element in our democracy remaining legitimate and in our having the trust and faith of the electorate. What more would you like to see the Bill do to rebuild trust in politics?

Vijay Rangarajan: There are a couple of areas where we would like to see further work. I have already mentioned company donations—that is crucial. To be clear, our polling shows that while trust in politics in general is quite low, trust in the electoral system is very high, as two of your previous witnesses said. That is important.

We would like the “know your donor” provisions to be strengthened. At the moment, to pass them, a political party accepting a donation would need to produce a risk assessment, but it would be good if that had to be public, sent to us or used in such a way that others could judge whether there was a reasonable risk of a party accepting impermissible donations. We know that that is one of the areas the public have least faith in: somewhere between 14% and 17% of the public think the political finance system works for them.

The second area is automatic registration, where it is less about the change in the Bill and more about implementing it before the next general election. Most countries have systems like this, and they work well. We know the data sources quite well. We recently evaluated four pilots in Welsh local authorities, and showed that they were very successful at boosting not only the completeness of the register but, crucially, the accuracy. There is not a tension between completeness and accuracy when you are using good data sources. We can now do that.

Another area to flag is overseas voters, which I think your previous witnesses mentioned. In many cases around the world, we think they have a hard deal in actually being able to vote. We would like to see further work to help them.

Finally, if the Committee does not mind, I will just ride my hobby horse. This will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, and some consolidation and simplification of electoral law is necessary, not least for electoral administrators, parties and candidates. We would very much like to see a broad-ranging, cross-party and Government commitment to do some consolidation over the next few years.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q I want to ask a question about foreign donations. The Bill seeks to ensure that any company making political donations must be able to demonstrate that it has a genuine connection to the UK. Do you believe that that will be sufficient to prevent foreign-linked entities from donating to political parties?

Vijay Rangarajan: We think that it is a very useful change but that it does not go far enough. We see a range of threats—I must admit that this is drawn from our experience of looking at other elections in other countries and working with partner electoral commissions —and that includes online. In the financial space, there is a distinct attempt by people to channel money into other people’s politics. It would be perfectly possible, even with the provisions you mentioned, for people in other countries, or impermissible donors in general, to channel money through a company, even if it had that linkage. That is why some kind of a cap on how much a company can donate, based on profit, coupled with the other tests the Government have in the Bill—for example, on persons of significant control—would be really helpful.

That will not completely eliminate the risk, and we look forward to what Philip Rycroft says about any other measures that may be needed, but we think it will help not only to reassure parties that they are at lower risk of accepting impermissible donations, which is a criminal act, but to reassure voters that the system is being kept under close review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Q In the strategy that the Government published last year, we set out that our electoral system is not keeping pace with an ever-changing world. How will the Bill bring us forward and keep us up to date?

Dr Garland: Many of the changes feel to me that they have been a long time coming: we heard from the Electoral Commission, which made a lot of these recommendations, about tightening political finance many years ago. There have been the large gaps in the completeness of our electoral register since at least 2011, and the Electoral Commission’s feasibility study was back in 2019. A lot of the changes are therefore catching up, rather than keeping pace.

One area where it is challenging to keep pace is in the digital sphere and online campaigning, but also in political finance. The Bill currently does not address cryptocurrency, which is a fast-changing area, so there are certainly areas where it is difficult to keep pace. “Keeping pace” is an important way to think about it, because of course in a democracy, unless we are moving forwards, we are necessarily sliding backwards. That is a challenge. We have to keep changing in order to protect what we have.

The one area that has changed the most in the past two years has been the electoral landscape. We are seeing things that we have never seen before—massive party system fragmentation and huge amounts of voter volatility—and that is having an effect on the operation of our electoral system. I appreciate that that is not covered in the Bill, but that does feel like one area where the Bill might find itself a bit out of step with what is happening in the wider electoral landscape.

[Lisa Smart]

Q For the record, Dr Garland and I used to be fellow trustees on a charity for a number of years. [Interruption.] No, I do not know every witness, but it is not far off.

In page 7 of your written evidence, Dr Garland, you talk about new clause 1, tabled in my name, on the voting system. That is something that affects a number of people, in the context of the changing landscape that you just laid out. We had the most disproportionate election ever in 2024, with a party that got a third of the votes getting two thirds of the seats and pretty much 100% of the power. Will you say a little more and expand on the comments you made about why a voting system change would better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves in 2026 and beyond?

Dr Garland: It comes down to the fact that first past the post, as a voting system, is designed for a two-party system. We have moved hugely towards a multi-party system, particularly in the last two years. In that circumstance, when you have many parties in contention, you end up with representatives elected on less than 30% of the vote. Whether you see that as acceptable or not, that is not what a majoritarian system is supposed to do, and it makes it incredibly confusing for voters.

If we think to the next general election, people will find it very difficult to know how to make their vote effect the outcome that they want. When you are in a multi-party system, but you are using a two-party voting system, you end up with very chaotic and unpredictable results. That is very bad for voters. We might also see Parliaments that really do not reflect how voters have voted, and that could do a huge amount of damage to trust in democracy, which is already on a life support machine.

[Lisa Smart]

Q So the position of the Electoral Reform Society would be that a change to a more proportionate system would better reflect the current situation and would improve trust in politics?

Dr Garland: And give more stability and predictability to our electoral outcomes.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, Dr Garland. We had a sharp fall in turnout at the last general election, and we have already spoken this morning about 8 million people not being registered. I support the principle of automatic voter registration, but I am keen to talk in a little bit more detail about how we would pilot this, because the Bill makes provision for pilots. I am interested in your take on what information we would need to undergo a pilot, and how quickly that could be established and up and running.

Dr Garland: As we heard earlier, timing is absolutely key. We need to get a move on and implement these things. In terms of the pilots, it would be really good to have a broad range of areas and datasets to look at. Ultimately, the goal has to be, “Can we find those missing millions?” We know that the 8 million missing off the register are not evenly distributed, and that certain groups are much less likely to be registered. Those are young people and people who move home more frequently—renters, for instance. I would like to see that looked at carefully, so with whatever data we get from pilots, we should ask, “Are we getting those people on the register?” Ultimately, that has to be the goal.

There are other benefits, such as making things easier for electoral registration officers. Cost savings are likely to come out of it as well, but the core has to be, “What is going to have the most coverage?” That could be a combination of automatic voter registration and assisted forms of registration, which is your motor voter-type thing, where you are prompted to vote with other services. I know that the Government are looking at that, and I welcome that very strongly. Whatever we can do to find those 8 million missing people and get them on the register in time for the next general election will do wonders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Q It has been a pleasure to work with the devolved Administrations in the interministerial work that I have done. Also, the officials have worked across all the Governments in the UK, which has been very productive. All of you have mentioned alignment, and that is an ambition that the Government have set out in this Bill. To what degree have we achieved that, and where could we go further?

Karen Jones: Thank you for the question, and thank you again, Minister, for the opportunity to contribute to the early stages of this Bill. We are really pleased to see a number of the long-standing proposals from administrators to make life a lot easier for voters and also administrators reflected in the Bill. We are very much supportive of that.

In terms of alignment, the devil will be in the detail, as we look at the rules for implementing the policies that the Bill contains. As I was saying about automatic voter registration, it will come down to the franchise and the timing elements. It may well be that we have to live with some disruption in the short term while we pursue greater alignment in the medium to long term. I think it is a step in the right direction, but more work will need to be done as we look at the detail of the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, if there is a UK-wide approach to votes at 16 and 17, it will make it easier to engage with young people. We have found with votes at 16 and 17 in Senedd elections that, because we have years in between when young people are not casting their vote, the engagement can be a bit stop-start. But a consistent policy across the UK will make it much easier for us to work collectively to make sure that young people and others are educated as to why they need to participate in the democratic process and understand how to go about exercising the franchise they have been given.

Malcolm Burr: I do not have a lot to add, but alignment should be there unless there is a good policy reason for it not being there. Policy divergence is inherent in devolution—that is what devolution is about: there can be different policy choices in different areas—but administrative divergence should be avoided wherever possible.

This is the occasion to mention the Law Commission’s welcome recommendation that there should be a consolidation of electoral law as far as possible, because it is a highly complex set of legislation and regulation, and it is more than time for a consistent legislative framework governing all elections, recognising the policy divergences across the various nations. Unnecessary divergence leads to confusion for voters, as well as inconvenience to electoral staff, so alignment should be a very clear aim, except where there is a good principle or policy reason for not aligning.

Robert Nicol: Administrators can and do make difficult things work in the background. We absolutely recognise each Parliament’s right to legislate as it sees fit. The difficulty we have is when electors are asked to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing. If an elector wants to register to vote, for example, and we say to them, “It’s okay, I’ve automatically registered you for this register, but you need to fill in that other form,” that not only makes me look daft as an electoral registration officer but causes confusion for the elector and does not help with overall confidence in the system. We have seen that recently with the postal vote divergence that happened, which has proven difficult and probably costly to stitch back together.

The Bill will enable people to register at 14. That does not align with Wales, but it aligns with Scotland, which is very welcome. There are other areas that are very welcome, but the Bill also has the potential to create different kinds of divergence if it is not implemented carefully. Administrators will do what they need to do, but think very, very carefully when asking an elector to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing.

[Lisa Smart]

Q There are different voting systems in different parts of the UK, but we all want participation to be as high as possible, and we all want trust in our politics and our electoral system to be as high as possible. Do you have any reflections on the different systems that you operate with for different elections, and on the impact those systems have on trust in politics, participation in politics and keeping confusion to a minimum?

Malcolm Burr: That is a big question because we have so many different voting systems in Scotland. We have single transferable vote for local government elections, the mixed system for the Scottish Parliament—the regional lists and constituency MSPs—and, of course, we have the traditional Westminster one Member, one constituency system. I would probably be verging into policy matters if I commented on the various merits of those systems. Suffice it to say, voter confusion—if there has been any—has lessened over the years. That is because there is a great deal more material—mostly from the Electoral Commission but also from returning officers directly—about how to vote and how the system works. Voter education is particularly important when you have divergent systems.

As an electoral administrator, I always look to rejected papers as a good guide to confusion. Those have remained consistent in some areas, but not in others—I am thinking of the local government elections, which use a numerical voting system, obviously, as it is single transferable vote. Despite all the guidance, there are still a significant number of rejections of papers of that are marked with more than one cross: the message that you are voting for up to three or four candidates but that you must do so numerically has not gotten through. It is less so for the other systems. From our perspective, it is about voter education in advance of the election, during the electoral period, and particularly at polling places. That is the place. A good presiding officer makes all the difference by saying, “Are you clear on how you cast your vote competently in this election?”

[The Chair]

Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything?

Robert Nicol: This is really outwith my sphere of expertise, so I will bow to Malcolm’s—

Representation of the People Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Our liberal democracy has become acutely vulnerable. Trust in our politics is being pulled apart at the seams. We face a flood of foreign money, and powerful men who hate our democracy, whether in silicon valley or the Kremlin, are working hard to undermine our social fabric and to interfere in our public life. Sadly, this Bill does not meet that moment and falls woefully short of the fundamental changes that our democracy urgently needs, even if we Lib Dems welcome some of the measures in it. We will be voting against the reasoned amendment and in favour of Second Reading, in the hope that the Bill can be substantially strengthened as it makes its way through Parliament.

I fear that the Government have not faced up to the crisis before us. Public trust in our political institutions is in freefall: 67% of the public think that politicians are just in it for themselves. It is no wonder that so many people who would make fantastic elected representatives are put off standing for election and take their talents elsewhere. The Electoral Commission has recorded growing dissatisfaction with our democracy and, frankly, I understand why. Westminster has been rocked by scandal after scandal, with partygate, the news that former Reform UK Wales leader Nathan Gill had been taking bribes to advance a pro-Russian agenda in the European Parliament, and the revelations about Peter Mandelson’s shocking conduct. We need root-and-branch reforms to our political system.

The Government claim to be modernising our democracy, but this Bill does not fix our outdated system, which continues to reward the most cynical members of the political establishment at the expense of everyone else. Where is the new accountability for politicians; where are the robust measures to really stamp out corruption and interference; and why is there nothing to address a voting system that was out of date a century ago, undermines accountability and is profoundly unfair?

Of course, there are worthwhile measures in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at 16 for decades. We have seen that succeed in Scotland, and we are proud to have helped secure that provision in this Bill. Young people pay taxes, face the consequences of political decisions and care deeply about the future of their country. Denying them a vote was always difficult to justify.

But this is far from enough to revive our democracy. As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they, and everyone who can vote in our country, feel confident. I recently met students from Marple college in my constituency. They will be voting for the first time at the next general election. We talked about what they needed to be ready to cast their votes. They are already articulate, well-informed on politics and enthusiastic. It is our responsibility to ensure that they feel confident to participate, confident that they will not be bombarded by disinformation, confident that their vote will count and confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose. They should be confident, too, that their civil liberties will be protected. We welcome the move towards automatic voter registration. We think it is a step in the right direction and we will support it, but it must fully respect people’s privacy as well as their right to vote.

To take a glaring example, new voters will still have identity papers demanded of them whenever they vote. That was implemented without decent evidence by a Tory party long out of ideas and full of cynicism. The Bill could have and should have been used to scrap the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme altogether. According to the Electoral Reform Society, 16,000 people were turned away from voting in 2024—against just 10 convictions for impersonation between 2019 and 2023. Which of those is really the greater threat to our democratic life? That is symptomatic of a Bill that is remarkably thin and all too timid, even in enforcing its own provisions.

I am baffled as to why the Government will not further strengthen the Electoral Commission in the face of historic threats to our democracy. We very much welcome the removal of the commission’s strategy and policy statement, but the commission itself says that while it

“welcomes many of the changes set out in the Bill, some provisions need to be strengthened to...better protect the system from foreign interference.”

We should remember that this regulator is not currently truly independent. Under the Elections Act 2022, the Conservative Government gave powers to Ministers to dictate the “roles and responsibilities” of the Electoral Commission in achieving the Government’s policy priorities. That made a mockery of the idea that politicians should not be able to interfere in elections, and it paved the way for any future Government, of whichever political hue, to rig our system. It is truly welcome that the Secretary of State announced plans to reinstate the independence of the commission by scrapping the strategy and policy statement. That should ensure non-partisan fair play in our elections.

It is on donations and foreign interference where the Liberal Democrats find the Bill to be most wanting. The case of Nathan Gill should stand as a stark warning about the levels of attempted interference we now face. The gaping holes in the Bill will allow foreign money to continue to flood in and infiltrate our democracy. For instance, using company revenue rather than profit as the test for determining whether a business has sufficient connection to the UK to make political donations, is too weak a safeguard. It can be too easily gamed. Spotlight on Corruption points out that the cap on corporations currently does not have teeth and should be focused on profit. A company turning over significant revenue in the UK, while being effectively controlled from abroad by interests hostile to our democracy, could still make donations under these provisions. That is not good enough. Foreign regimes and their political elites should have no business in our democracy whatsoever.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

There has, rightly, been a lot of talk on both sides of the House about restricting and capping foreign donations, and how they are regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at how foreign individuals and foreign states use social media to influence and change election results?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the big ways foreign individuals can influence our democracy is through money. The other way is through influence, using money from companies, often not owned in the UK, that control a lot of the information that British citizens see. He is entirely right to make that point.

The lack of a cap on political donations is a fundamental gap. Although the Bill introduces transparency and due diligence requirements, more transparency alone is not enough when individuals and corporations can still donate unlimited sums to political parties.

[Sam Rushworth]

A moment ago the hon. Lady referenced Nathan Gill. I share her abhorrence at what Reform’s leader in Wales did in taking bribes from Russia, but it was already illegal—it was a case of being caught. What does she suggest that the Bill should do to prevent those sorts of illegal activities from happening?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for allowing me a bit of space to expand on this point further. Companies should have to prove profit in the UK, not just revenue in the UK, to be able to donate. There is a real danger that money from abroad, from state actors and non-state actors, can be funnelled through third-party campaign groups—think-tanks and others—as a way of trying to influence our democracy. It is entirely possible that very wealthy individuals or state actors abroad put money into think-tanks, which then put money into political parties. That is the sort of thing I would look to amend as the Bill makes its way through the House. Unlimited donations mean unlimited influence. They corrode public trust and distort political priorities. Until we cap donations, we will continue to have a democracy that is for sale.

Finally, there is an extraordinary irony that, despite its grand title, the Bill does not even touch the root of unfairness and distrust in our democracy. It does nothing about a first-past-the-post voting system that was outdated decades ago and is a millstone around the neck of our democratic life. This electoral system consistently delivers results that bear little resemblance to the actual preferences of the electorate. Millions of votes count for nothing.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree that, since the House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill which I presented in December 2024, and since the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a motion to bring in proportional representation at one of its conferences, there is a wide acceptance that it is time to scrap first past the post, which does not deliver the results that people vote for? Is the Bill not an enormous missed opportunity?

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I applaud the work she has done during her time here to move the case forward for a fairer, more representative voting system. The Bill is a huge opportunity and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on how we can strengthen it and make it even better.

[Martin Wrigley]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the single transferable vote system is good enough for selecting Select Committee Chairs and the alternative vote system is good enough for mayors, they should be good enough in other elections, too?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I do. I fear it would try the patience of the House if I were to get into that level of detail about my favourite voting systems with my hon. Friend—we only have a further three hours of this debate, so I will press on—but I do agree with him that there are more representative ways to elect our representatives that we should look at.

We Liberal Democrats will continue to press for proportional representation so that we can finally make every vote count. It is a matter of basic fairness. No Bill claiming to modernise our democracy can be taken seriously while it ignores this question. Worse, it does not even introduce elections for our second Chamber, leaving the House of Lords unreformed, unelected and, in the current climate, frankly indefensible. Peers face no meaningful accountability to the public whose lives they affect.

The Bill takes some limited, but sadly too timid, steps in the right direction. It fails to seize the opportunity to rebuild trust and make our vulnerable, brittle democracy more resilient. We look forward to working constructively to strengthen it during the parliamentary process, because we must be more courageous and ambitious than the Bill currently is. We must stop taking our democracy for granted.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Emily Darlington.

Local Government Finance

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Like others, I warmly welcome the multi-year funding settlement. As a former local councillor, I know the impact it will have on local councils, which will be able to plan when they are tackling some of the thorniest issues that affect our most vulnerable constituents. We in this country are blessed to have remarkable people working in local government, and the best local councillors know their communities, stand up for them and mither their MPs to stand up for them.

At first glance, Stockport appears to be one of the areas that is worse off under this funding settlement, despite containing the most deprived part of Greater Manchester. We missed out on the recovery grant by 0.01%, and the initial indication is that we will be worse off. Will the Minister meet me, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) so that we can go through this and work out how we will make sure that my most vulnerable constituents are not unduly impacted?

[Alison McGovern]

I will.

Electoral Resilience

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that the elections Minister would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her concerns. The review will look at any foreign financial interference in our democracy, and I would expect the points she raises to be in scope.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and the establishment of the independent review, and I agree with colleagues across the House who talked about the importance of the resilience of our democracy as well as about its current fragility. I note that the Secretary of State does not seem keen to give us too many spoilers about what to expect in the elections Bill in the new year, but I my question follows those asked by my colleague from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). If the review recommended a cap on donations or restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission, would those be things that the Secretary of State would support?

[Steve Reed]

We certainly understand the risks posed to elections; for that reason, as we published in the strategy in July, through the elections Bill we will seek to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties. The findings of the independent review will inform what is in the Bill.

Planning Reform

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid—I have been very open about saying it before—that I have never been convinced by that CPRE research. As to the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we want to see more development on previously developed land, absolutely. I stress once again to hon. Members the radical nature of the proposals that we have brought forward today with regard to brownfield land. We are proposing development support in principle within settlements as a whole, with a permanent presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. Opposition Members keep challenging us to go further on brownfield. There is no further. This is dialling up brownfield to the extreme and it will ensure that we get brownfield applications in, as well as green-belt land release and designation where necessary.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My column for the Stockport Express is this week encouraging my constituents to respond to the Stockport local plan consultation—the deadline is Sunday—because the Government’s doubling of the housing target for Stockport will have an impact on our green belt and our community, and I am really keen that they have their say. Anyone serious knows we need more homes to be built, but I absolutely understand the worries of my constituents. They are thinking about the impact the doubling of the housing target will have on roads, GP appointments, schools and, in particular, our green spaces. One of the problems with the Government’s approach is the sequencing. Constituents see the downside of large-scale developments without the needed public transport. Would the Minister support minimum infrastructure targets before and alongside minimum housing targets?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I have already made on how the new draft framework further consolidates and strengthens the expectations around infrastructure provision. Vision-led transport, which is now hardwired through the framework, will make a difference to the challenges she poses, but she is absolutely right that we want to see infrastructure up front, alongside new homes being delivered.

Local Elections

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister agrees that trust in our politics, and trust in our democracy, is absolutely vital. I am also sure she will regret that postponing elections gives some, including those who do not have our country’s best interests at heart, the opportunity to try to sow seeds of distrust. This morning she will have seen the Electoral Commission’s latest stats, which show some eye-wateringly large donations. Our elections are not being fought on an even footing if they can be bought by a small handful of individuals. Will she encourage the Minister for Democracy to use the opportunity of the elections Bill to take meaningful steps to increase transparency and clarity, and to tighten up the financial donation rules, in order to restore trust in our democracy?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that powerful point. Yes, we absolutely will do so.