Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through.

The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review.

First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow.

Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months.

There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage.

To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through.

Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his offer to work constructively with the Government on these issues. He and I have worked constructively to date, and we have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. The political parties committee at the Electoral Commission is also sighted on the changes. As we go forward, I will meet other parties’ representatives, too. I would have met them today, had we not tabled this statement, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I underline that the existing standards arrangements are unaffected by these proposals. I look forward to meeting and working with the shadow Minister in the future.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I welcome the new Minister to her place; I know that she has a background in these issues, and I look forward to working with her in the weeks, months or years ahead. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. He is a great champion for his community. This issue is close to his heart, and given his previous career in local government he is very knowledgeable about it.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned a range of topics, which shows how much he is involved in his constituency and community, ranging from flaws in the banking hub criteria to the aesthetics of our high streets. I know that that comes from his time as leader of a local authority. I am also his Whip; after this morning, he can be guaranteed a good mention in dispatches later.

We have heard some entertaining and knowledgeable speeches from my colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) have shown their in-depth knowledge of the challenges in their constituencies.

Traditionally, high streets have been seen as indicators of the health of our economy, with the British Retail Consortium calculating that retail generates nearly £500 billion in annual sales and nearly 3 million jobs. According to the Office for National Statistics, around 4.4 million people work in businesses located on British high streets, which represents roughly 14% of all employment in the UK.

The contribution of the sector to the UK economy is vital to any Government seeking economic growth, especially regionally driven growth, which I have reason to believe the incoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), is enthusiastic about. This growth will be much better able to sustain communities and help them thrive. It will empower local people, business owners and decision makers to improve the areas they know and love better than any centrally planned project ever could.

As I have said in previous debates, however, the high street is more than a place where cash, services and goods change hands. It is at the heart of our communities—a place where people can come together to catch up over a coffee or a beer, have a natter in the nail bar or have a quiet read in the local bookshop. The value of our high streets cannot be quantified by simple sums of money, or by the business rates or council tax that they generate for the Treasury and local government. They are so much more than that.

As has been outlined this morning, however, there is a sad story of decline on our high streets. Many factors explain that, and colleagues from across the House have touched on many of those, including the rise of online shopping, cost of living pressures, economic stagnation, high taxes on businesses, planning issues, poor local transport links and stretched public services. There are many causes of the problem, and many people lose out from dying high streets.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the impact on young people. Retail has always been one of the UK’s great entry-level employers. It has given generations of young people their first job, taught customer services skills, teamwork and responsibility, and provided a pathway into management and business ownership. As Members will be aware following the publication of Alan Milburn’s report, youth unemployment stands at a staggering 16.2%—an increase of almost two percentage points on last year; at the same time, youth employment has fallen. More than 3 million 16 to 24-year-olds across the country are unemployed and economically inactive.

We should ask ourselves a simple question: how many of those young people have been pushed out of work, or denied work in the first place, by the continuing decline of our high streets? Increases to the minimum wage, the surging cost of employer national insurance contributions and council tax hikes are just a few of the burdens heaped on to businesses, which have been pushed to the wire. In 2024 alone, more than 13,000 high street stores closed, and over the last two years the retail sector has lost almost 250,000 jobs. Every shop that closes represents not just another empty unit but another lost opportunity for someone hoping to take their first step into employment. If we genuinely care about tackling economic inactivity, we cannot ignore what is happening in our town centres and high streets.

The picture is no better for Britain’s pubs. At this point, I had better declare an interest: I like being in pubs quite a lot. Changes to employer national insurance contributions have added around £7,200 a year to the wage bill of the average pub, which employs eight people. Layer on top of that business rate reforms, which were presented as a lifeline but for many businesses have proved to be anything but, and it becomes easy to understand why so many publicans are questioning whether they can continue. The consequences are stark: across Britain, two pubs close every day.

At the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor promised to “permanently lower” business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, telling Parliament that this would help to level the playing field for our high streets. That ambition was welcome, but when the detail emerged many businesses concluded that the reforms would do the opposite. Rather than providing certainty, the changes have raised serious concerns that many larger retailers and hospitality businesses—the so-called anchor tenants that attract shoppers to our town centres—could face significantly higher costs. Those businesses generate footfall for everyone else. When a department store, a supermarket, a major retailer or a large hospitality venue closes, it is not just the business itself that suffers; small independent retailers, cafés and local shops lose passing trade.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Government need to know when to step back and when to step forward. They need to step back by reducing the costs that my hon. Friend has set out, and they need to step forward by restricting where businesses can be located. The Government should be obliging businesses to reinvest in the high street.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is something that this Labour Government have never got to grips with.

Businesses already operating on tight margins face £40 billion of tax rises, including substantial increases in national insurance contributions, which will place further strain on them. I am delighted that colleagues on the Opposition Benches mentioned the Leader of the Opposition’s pledge to abolish business rates for most high street businesses.

Alongside the economic challenges facing our high streets, we must also confront an uncomfortable truth, which many Members have mentioned: our constituents are increasingly concerned that some high street premises are being used not as genuine businesses but as vehicles for tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime. Those concerns are frequently raised in relation to certain cash-intensive businesses, including some barber shops, nail salons, mini-marts and vape shops. The overwhelming majority of those businesses are of course honest, hard-working enterprises that serve their communities and deserve our support, but the ones that are not undermine legitimate traders, distort competition and damage public confidence in our town centres.

[Gareth Snell]

The other point that I want to raise—this is the small part of the hon. Member’s speech that I agree with—is that those places also tend to have people who are in indentured work or modern slavery, so there is a human impact as well as an economic one.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I will come to, we welcome the Government’s early actions to tackle those businesses, but we think they could do more, and we offer our support in that.

The Government introduced the economic crime levy, which we support, ensuring that those operating within the regulated financial sector contribute towards tackling money laundering and wider economic crime. It reflected the principle that protecting the integrity of our economy is a shared responsibility. However, there is clearly more to do. Without properly resourced investigations, effective intelligence sharing and robust action by enforcement agencies, there is a risk that the powers will exist only on paper. Trading standards, local authorities, HM Revenue and Customs, the police, immigration enforcement and the National Crime Agency all have a crucial role to play, but they need the resources and capacity to act. Evidence from trading standards professionals is particularly striking: 96% had encountered serious organised crime groups in their work.

My time is fast approaching. I hope there is cross-party agreement on how we can tackle such businesses on our high streets, but there is more work to do. The Conservative party has put forward a platform to enable our high streets to thrive. This Government’s economic policies have damaged them. Maybe that will change when we have our new Prime Minister, but I sincerely doubt it.

Elections: First Past the Post

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries.

We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first-past-the-post system achieves that better than any other.

I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so they are in for a shock this afternoon, but one of their skills is mobilising voters to go to the polls. I have seen that myself on my home patch, much to my and my councillors’ annoyance. One of the clearest criticisms of first past the post is the impact that it has on eroding voter confidence in the electoral system and therefore suppressing turnout. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Voter turnout has been on the decline for generations, but not consistently. It is fair to say that we are unlikely to see the levels of the 80% turnouts of the 1940s and 1950s. Growing voter apathy is a problem, but I do not think that the electoral system is to blame per se. The blame is with us as politicians—all of us. I sincerely believe that if we inspire, we make others aspire. We can all raise our game in this House and as political parties.

I find it slightly bizarre to keep revisiting a debate that the British public have made clear they do not support. First past the post has proven to be the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance—I will come back to that—and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. We want a system that forms a single alternative Government rather than the more fragmented alternative often seen under proportional representation systems. I think that is not just a theoretical point.

In countries where proportional representation is used, we can see the consequences of fragmentation very clearly. For example, in Belgium, proportional representation has contributed to fragmented Parliaments and lengthy coalition negotiations where no single party is able to present itself clearly as a Government in waiting. Clarity of outcome is an important feature in our democratic system.

As Members of Parliament, first and foremost our roles are to represent our constituents and our constituencies here in Parliament. First past the post creates a clear and direct link between Members of Parliament and the people we represent. It provides the voter with clarity over who represents them, whose surgery they can go to, who they can hold to account and, importantly, who they can remove at a general election. Such clarity is a democratic strength and a crucial part of maintaining voter trust.

Why would we adopt a system that weakens the direct link between voters and their representatives? Proportional voting systems where members are elected from long party lists make that relationship less direct and less clear. That direct constituency link is not only a practical strength of the system, but part of a much longer tradition in our parliamentary democracy. I think many advocates for an alternative voting system overlook the historical significance of first past the post. It has been in place since medieval England, and it is the bedrock of our democracy. Changing the way we elect Members of this House is not a minor administrative matter. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should it be driven by dissatisfaction with a particular electoral outcome.

[Olly Glover]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first-past-the-post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?

[Paul Holmes]

I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice.

It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.

[Lisa Smart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alternative vote is a preferential voting system, not a proportional system?

[Paul Holmes]

Absolutely, and we can talk about that, but that was the system that the Liberal Democrats proposed in that referendum, and they lost the argument when they were in government. When they were last in government, they put a question on reforming the voting system to the country and it was resoundingly rejected. I agree with the hon. Lady; I am not in favour of referendums a lot of the time. But I believe that we have put the issue of reforming our voting system to bed for the foreseeable future—that is, unless a Government come in with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system, in which case we can have that discussion, even though my party would still oppose it.

It is worth saying that 2% of local counting areas voted against the last referendum. I struggle to see why we would reopen a question on which the public have already expressed a clear preference. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter. This debate is not fundamentally about voter understanding or participation; it is about dissatisfaction with how support for certain parties translates into seats under the current system.

Many Members make the case that we should switch to a proportional representation system in order to follow the example of other major democratic nations. I do not accept that. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments—which is slightly ironic, given the last week or so. I also remind Members of the comments made in previous contributions: we vote for Members of Parliament, not for Prime Ministers. That is the key point about the system in our country. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been spoken of as the Prime Minister-elect. We do not have that. We elect Members of Parliament, and the party that has the most MPs forms a Government. If they do not have a majority, they try to form a coalition—that has happened in recent history. We do not vote for Prime Ministers. That is why I do not think that argument pushes the case forward for proportional representation.

This country has consistently delivered stable Governments, in contrast to a number of European systems, which rely on complex coalition arrangements. That is not to suggest that we need to compare systems like that to justify our own, but it is clear that first past the post prevents smaller and more extreme parties from having undue influence, which is a respected element of the UK’s democracy. I refer Members to some of the parties elected to the Israeli Parliament, which has a proportional representational system.

In conclusion, first past the post is not a perfect system, but it is a proven one. It delivers a clear link between constituents and their representatives. It provides voters with identifiable accountability, and it ensures that Governments are formed with a clear mandate from the electorate. I utterly respect the case made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I utterly respect the fact that we are likely to see calls for electoral reform in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I dearly hope the voters reject that option. For the reasons I have set out, I believe first past the post is the system to form strong and stable Governments in the United Kingdom.

Park Home Owners

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a pleasure to see so many Members in this debate. It is always ominous to have my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), sitting next to me in a debate—I do not know whether that is an expectation of great things or a sign that there will be a meeting without coffee. Might I say that he made a very, very good speech? I hope the Minister takes it on board.

In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate on Government support for park home owners. He introduced the issue in a humorous way, but also in a very serious, constructive way. I understand that he has a busy day, as he is also introducing a ten-minute rule Bill, which is a testament to the way he represents his Rushcliffe constituents. I suspect he will also have a very busy evening.

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up this issue, as about 159,000 people live in mobile or park homes across 1,800 sites. We all recognise that park homes present themselves as an attractive choice for some people, and are therefore an important part of the national housing market.

Colleagues across the House have made excellent speeches, but I would like to mention a few from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said that everybody would automatically pick a park home site in South Shropshire, but I politely disagree. Given that we have the beautiful Solent on the south coast, I suspect that many people would choose one of the many park home sites in my Hamble Valley constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) rightly mentioned fuel costs, which came up throughout the debate. I will come to that in a minute, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. She spoke about planning enforcement and raised a specific case, and it important that we get that right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the lack of expertise in local planning authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has done a huge amount of work in this space. In the last Parliament, I was delighted to co-sign his Bill, and I was pleased that the previous Government backed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke about the huge problems that many park home owners face. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned the sporadic nature of maintenance on sites across the country.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is absolutely right to bring this important topic to light. Park homes are an often overlooked part of our housing sector that provide a comfortable living space and a community-oriented way of life. They are particularly valued by our older members of society, who have worked hard and deserve suitable protections and support. I think all of us here can agree that home ownership brings with it not just a sense of accomplishment, but an expectation of security and peace of mind, yet for many park home residents that expectation is not always met, particularly when their home sits on a site run by an unscrupulous operator. We have a duty to ensure that someone who has invested their life savings in a home does not find themselves facing unpredictable costs or unclear rights.

I am proud that the last Government recognised that more had to be done to protect park home owners’ rights and to support residents’ awareness of both their rights and the responsibilities. After a thorough review of the mobile or park homes legislation, the previous Government—this was mentioned on both sides of the Chamber—brought forward legislation to make it a legal requirement for a site owner or manager to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to manage a mobile home site. Too often, park home residents have been asked to pay significant sums, only to find that site maintenance falls short of what they have every right to expect. That is not just disappointing; it is fundamentally unfair. If operators are to charge those fees, they must also meet their clear responsibility to keep sites safe, well maintained and fit for purpose.

As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch promoted the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023. That delivered important economic relief for park home residents. Changing the basis for pitch fee increases from the retail prices index to the generally lower consumer prices index ensures that annual rises are more proportionate and fairer. That change had long been called for by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign.

Many Members across the Chamber raised the issue of the 10% commission on the sale of a park home. The last Government began the important process of researching the potential impact of a change to the maximum commission paid on such a sale. I am watching with interest this Government’s efforts to look in greater detail at commission payments and I hope that the Minister will look at that with great scrutiny—I know that he will, given the way he conducts himself. We look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with.

A burden that park home owners face—this genuinely is not a political point, as my party looked into the issue when we were in government, and it was apparent that there was no straightforward fix—is that they are often among the hardest hit when it comes to energy costs. That is largely because many do not have the freedom to choose their own energy supplier, leaving them more exposed to higher prices and less competitive markets. I note that towards the end of last year, Ofgem reignited efforts to look into this issue through a call for evidence on the rules around the resale of gas and electricity and the maximum resale price arrangements. The issue was last reviewed in 2001, so I look forward to looking into the findings when they are published.

We must recognise that energy costs for park home residents are not shaped only by resale arrangements. Unlike households on the mains gas and electricity network, which benefit from the energy price cap, many park homes rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes and water, so I welcome the Government’s commitment of £53 million to support households reliant on heating oil, in particular low-income families, who are most affected. It is right that support is targeted where need is greatest. I note that in England, that funding will be delivered through local authorities via the crisis and resilience fund, which came into effect on 1 April. However, I remain concerned that there is still no clear confirmation as to whether park home residents will be eligible for that support. Given the specific vulnerabilities that they face in relation to energy supply and pricing, I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point directly in his response this morning.

We have seen how difficult it can be to ensure that people off grid actually receive and benefit from funding support. That was a lesson learned in 2022, when similar measures to support similar groups were brought in after the shocks from the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hope that the Minister will commit to monitoring the efficiency of funding distribution.

Members here today, particularly the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, outlined several issues that park home owners face and the importance of them receiving the appropriate Government support. Supporting park home owners is about providing more protections and security for the residents who live in these communities, and supporting the wider housing market. It requires cross-party support—something that as a shadow Housing Minister I commit to providing when the Government come forward with their proposals. The Minister gave me a wry smile, but it is now on the record that if the Government come forward with sensible proposals to tackle this issue, then on a cross-party basis we will look at that seriously. It does require cross-party support, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to provide continued and accelerated support, so that park home owners across the country, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley, get the services they deserve for the money they have saved.

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to clauses 70 to 74 first, and we will come to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats later.

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on the UK’s democratic processes. We know that electoral staff faced unacceptable abuse and intimidation during the 2024 general election. That is why we are extending the scope of the disqualification order to ensure that electoral staff are provided with the same protection as candidates, campaigners and elective office holders.

Clause 70 will enhance the disqualification order’s ability to protect those who participate in public life, and those who play a crucial part in the administration and delivery of elections. It will also act as a deterrent, signalling that intimidatory behaviour is a serious matter that must not be allowed to damage our democracy.

It is clear that more must be done to tackle the abuse and intimidation directed at those who participate in elections and political debate. While disqualification orders are a key part of tackling the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of those in public life, they do nothing to prevent those who have no interest in standing as a candidate from engaging in intimidatory or abusive behaviour. Clause 71 introduces a new statutory aggravating factor, which will empower courts to apply an uplift when passing sentence for an offence linked to intimidation. This is where the offender was motivated by hostility towards candidates, campaigners, elective office holders and electoral officials and their staff.

Clause 72 introduces this new statutory aggravating factor in Northern Ireland, and amends the location of the pre-existing Scottish aggravating factor. This is a significant new deterrent for those who seek to damage the UK’s democracy or intimidate those who uphold it, and will ensure that anyone who does so will be subject to appropriate criminal justice penalties.

Let us turn to clause 73. Disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022, to be imposed on offenders throughout the UK who commit crimes of hostility against electoral candidates, campaigners and officer holders. Scotland introduced Scottish disqualification orders in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, which gave similar protection to a fourth category: Scottish electoral officials. The Bill extends the scope of the disqualification order in the Elections Act 2022 to protect electoral officials throughout the UK, but Scottish electoral officials will continue to be covered by the Scottish legislation.

To ensure that there is a fully reciprocal relationship between disqualification orders in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Bill also applies the effect of Scottish disqualification orders to relevant elective offices throughout the UK. That ensures that if someone is disqualified from standing for or holding office in Scotland, they will also be unable to stand for or hold office in the rest of the UK, and vice versa.

That will ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK for intimidatory behaviour towards those who participate in public life. If a person is convicted of specific criminal offences, motivated by hostility towards candidates, future candidates, substitutes, nominees, campaigners, holders of relevant elective office or electoral officials, they will be prohibited from standing for or holding office for five years across the UK. Clause 74 builds on the measures introduced in clause73, and makes amendments to various pieces of legislation to apply the Scottish disqualification order to relevant elected offices across the UK.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for the information about a photographer being present; had I known, I would have had a shave this morning. Normally, we can only be heard in audio and, as my mother says, I have a face that only a mother could love.

We welcome the Minister outlining the parameters of the clauses, and welcome the fact that the Government are taking the safety of election staff seriously. They are public facing, and work with us on an equal basis to ensure that democracy works. We therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government are extending these protections to election staff. Officer teams across the whole country are very busy at the moment; we know that from our various involvements with election returning officers, and the election staff who are making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote can do so via different methods.

When an officer reads out the results on television, and faces an inquiry from somebody who they do not satisfy, that can spur on the kind of attacks and threats that we receive as publicly elected officials. It is therefore absolutely right that such officers should enjoy the same protections that we do. As I say, the Government should be congratulated on taking this matter seriously.

It therefore makes perfect sense to amend the sentencing code for England and Wales in clause 71 regarding offences that have been committed under the Elections Act 2022, so that going forward this can be treated as an aggravating factor. Of course, it is also perfectly sensible that the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.

We strongly welcome the Government’s action on this; it should be supported by everybody. I wanted to put it on the record that the Minister should be congratulated for it.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy.

Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates.

The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed.

New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people

“employed by or working under the direction”

of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government, through the Bill, will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination papers. The purpose of this additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer for the specific purpose of the returning officer then sharing those details with local policing. Once local policing has this information, the relevant force’s elected official adviser will then make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates, through Members on this Committee and in the wider House, to take up the offer of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.

[Paul Holmes]

On new clause 55 and amendment 38, I understand why the hon. Member for Guildford, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is attempting to change the legislation.

The Minister may remember that we had a back-and-forth in relation to the security briefings being offered to candidates through Operation Ford, and the Government’s amendments. Has she given any more thought to a statutory timeline, and guidance on making sure that candidates are offered those briefings in a reasonable timeframe so that nobody slips through the net because the police force has not got around to it? That may inform the decision of the hon. Member for Guildford regarding whether to press the new clause and amendment to a vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that the Electoral Commission is working hard, and that to prescribe timetables would place a restriction on it that we do not feel is required. Given the good, proactive work that it already does in this area, with the Government working alongside it, we do not feel it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission. With JESP, the Department and the Electoral Commission working hard across the electoral landscape, we do not feel that the amendment and the new clause are necessary, so I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to push them to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 14

Removal of strategy and policy statement

“(1) In Part 1 of PPERA 2000 (the Electoral Commission) omit—

(a) sections 4A to 4E and the italic heading before those sections (strategy and policy statement);

(b) section 13ZA and the italic heading before that section (examination by the Speaker’s Committee of the Electoral Commission’s performance of duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).

(2) Omit sections 16 and 17(1) of the Elections Act 2022 (which inserted the sections repealed by subsection (1)).

(3) The Electoral Commission is not required to publish a report under section 4B(4) of PPERA 2000 in relation to any 12-month period ending on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This new clause removes provision about the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.

On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.

Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.

On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.

New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.

This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.

New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.

Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.

New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.

On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak briefly to Opposition new clauses 38 and 39 in my name. They are proportionate measures to enhance the legislation and assist the Government in their aim of tightening up on foreign political donations.

New clause 38 would prevent people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020, but are not qualifying Commonwealth citizens, from being permissible donors. We have tabled it because we are concerned that modern changes to devolved legislation have created loopholes in who can give money from foreign origins.

The Labour Government in Wales have given all foreigners the right to vote in local and devolved elections. The SNP Scottish Government have done the same in Scotland. Those Administrations have made those changes through section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act and section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act.

Such legislation has also given foreign residents the right to make unlimited donations to UK politicians and political parties. We contend that that opens the door to Russian, Chinese and Iranian foreign influence. For example, a Chinese “student” resident at a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any UK political entity. We have raised that issue in Parliament, but the current Government have declined to address it. The new clause would essentially ban that from happening, except where a person is a Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen, as we believe those historical links are much more in keeping with the current electoral guidelines and legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Our package of reforms already strengthens the electoral framework in a more effective and appropriate way. The new “know your donor” regime will require recipients of significant donations to undertake risk assessments on the origin of the funds, helping them to identify potential foreign or illicit influence at the point a donation is made.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand why the Minister is concerned about some of the new clauses, and as I said before, she is right that the Government are trying to tighten up the regime. On her argument that the Electoral Commission does not currently have the responsibilities she outlined, however, does she not agree that there is still a problem with two-way information sharing?

The Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Electoral Commission has the power to access Companies House information and powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. However, if we look at past examples of registered Chinese Communist party spies giving money to political parties in this House, does she not think it would have been useful if the Labour party, in that case, had known about that via the security services and could have refused the donation? I am not sure whether the Government are filling the hole of two-way information sharing, and that concerns me.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a breather. As he knows, the Rycroft review considered this matter and—I mean this sincerely; it is not simply a form of words for the Committee —the Government are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. To give him that assurance: this is part of that consideration.

Alongside the measures I mentioned, enhanced company permissibility tests ensure that only organisations with a genuine and substantive UK connection can donate, closing off key vulnerabilities in our electoral framework. The Government are also committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and anticipate that this will include an impact evaluation assessing whether the policies introduced have achieved their intended aims.

We have discussed the Rycroft review, and I sincerely mean it when I say that we will respond fully in due course to all the measures in it, including on improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government, the security services and the police. For those reasons, while I fully understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to strengthening our defences against foreign interference, the Government do not consider this amendment to be the right mechanism to achieve that end.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to all who have contributed. I plan to press to a vote all the new clauses that I have spoken to.

[Paul Holmes]

In the interests of ensuring that you call the right votes, Dame Siobhain, there is no doubt in my mind when the Minister says she is genuinely looking at trying to fix this problem—I believe her; she is a Minister of integrity and I know the Government absolutely want to achieve that aim—but this is happening now and, with no commitment to timescales, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked for in relation to the Rycroft review, I am concerned that it will still be a problem.

I know the Minister will try to implement this carefully, but the lack of information sharing at this precise moment means that money is still being given, despite the fact that organisations that the Electoral Commission is not currently asking could provide that desperately needed clarity and transparency. Given the reassurance that the Minister has given to the Opposition on new clauses 38 and 39, however, I will not press them to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word she says about there being a very fine balance between a moratorium and a ban—a ban could, actually, be retrograde—but if we have a moratorium we should at least have a regulatory framework that makes sure that cryptocurrency cannot be moved upstream. Does she share my concern that, despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, and despite consistent pushing for a timescale for the implementation of the Rycroft review, we have not had that? She is therefore right that the Committee is the perfect opportunity to get the ideas of all political parties, and to hopefully get a better idea of the Government response.

[Dr Chowns]

I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and sense of urgency about getting Rycroft implemented as soon as possible. In the spirit of giving credit where it is due, the Government did commission that review—which was good—the review was quite fast, there was an immediate statement, and the Bill is going through. I do not think that we are in a perfect place.

I would have liked the Bill to have longer in Committee to give the Government a chance to introduce amendments that we could properly scrutinise. It is deeply unfortunate that, for a Bill that is about the workings of our electoral system, we are not able to do that core scrutiny in Committee—the crucial line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, which is the elected Chamber. We are being asked, basically, to take it on trust. It is not that I distrust Government, but it is important to have this discussion now. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.

I have made the point about the importance of including in primary legislation the criteria under which any moratorium might be lifted in the future, and that there must be really strong safeguards. I have also made the point that a ban on crypto donations will not itself stop the risk, because of the downstream issues. We have to think carefully about how whatever mechanism is introduced deals with that.

We have already seen that Ben Delo, who has given £4.5 million to Reform in recent months, has said, “Oh dear, since I am going to be hit by this retrospective moratorium I am going to move back to the UK to evade it.” That is clear evidence of gaming the system by a guy who, by the way, was convicted in the US of impropriety in relation to political financing. He was subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump. We have to be really careful of how bad actors might manipulate any legislative proposals that are introduced.

A ban on cryptocurrency will not, in itself, stop the risks. We also need a cap on all political donations—we will discuss a group of new clauses relating to that in a bit, so I will save my arguments on that topic until then—plus a donor register, as I spoke about in Tuesday’s sitting. A donor register with donor registration numbers would address the issue of traceability and address the risk that donations are split into many tiny donations to hide the fact that they are all from the same place. Having to have a donor registration number that is associated with a particular, identified, allowable donor would go a long way to addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lisa Smart]

I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play.

The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like. Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis.

The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term.

Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace. The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them.

On new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded:

“Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.”

Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that

“donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.”

New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted. That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated.

It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain. On that basis, I commend new clauses 12 and 20 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I will touch very briefly on the new clauses that have been tabled. I thank RUSI for the report that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined. I had a meeting with RUSI yesterday, and the fact that it was able to even start to break the ice of my understanding of cryptocurrency and the regulatory framework that is needed was a miracle. It has done a lot of work on this issue, and I congratulate it on coming up with quite sensible proposals and information that goes into detail about the benefits of a ban versus a moratorium.

It is very easy in this House to ban things, but we do not want a ban that creates a worse problem by moving that cryptocurrency upstream. Therefore, as the official Opposition we welcome the idea that there should be a moratorium. We also welcome the fact that the Government implemented an immediate ban pending a review. If a moratorium goes ahead, we need to make sure that an adequate regulatory framework is implemented to prevent some of the exploitative measures that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove outlined in her excellent contribution.

As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined, we are discussing in this Bill Committee probably the most important aspect of the integrity of the electoral process. There are plenty of others in that competition, but the most important aspect of that is foreign interference and donations, including cryptocurrency donations. We are being asked to give the Government our trust—and I do trust the Minister—that these changes are going to happen very soon. The hon. Member is absolutely correct to say that this is the most intense part of the parliamentary process. At the moment, we are being asked to debate new clauses put forward by Opposition parties. We are relying on the Government to give these matters just as much importance, yet they have not given that timescale.

I am torn on new clause 4. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but at the moment my feeling is that new clause 4 is really not worth agreeing to. That is because of the evidence given to me by RUSI, which shows that preventing parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets does not solve the issue of those cryptoassets getting through to candidates and parties, or interested parties, later down the line.

The briefing that was given to me by RUSI about the potential drawbacks of a ban mean that I am not satisfied that new clause 4 would do anything at this precise moment. I rose to speak because I want to sincerely give the official Opposition’s commitment to assist if the Minister wants to engage on a cross-party basis. That has my contention at other stages of the Bill Committee—we stand ready to assist on a cross-party basis to really speed up the passage of elements of the Bill, including on this matter. I would never speak on behalf of other parties, but I am sure that stands for them as well.

[Lisa Smart]

As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

For the sake of the record, I feel duty bound to say, “Me too!”

[Paul Holmes]

I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.

The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 4 seeks to make donations made to a registered political party, candidate or agent impermissible if the donation is made wholly or in part with cryptoassets.

New clause 12 purports to take a power so that the Secretary of State may make regulations, drafted by the Electoral Commission, mandating various requirements relating to the political donation of cryptoassets. It seeks to establish that political donations made via cryptoassets would be deemed impermissible unless those regulations were met. It intends to create an effective moratorium on cryptoasset donations until those regulations would be in force. On 25 March, the Secretary of State published the report of the independent review by Sir Philip Rycroft—sorry, I keep knighting him.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and all other Members who have offered to work on a cross-party basis—if only the hon. Member replied to my letters!

[Paul Holmes]

I don’t think I have had any.

[Samantha Dixon]

He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came.

Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage.

I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.

[Paul Holmes]

I think the Minister is being slightly sneaky, dare I suggest: she did write to me about having meetings, but there were no proposals in the Bill on cryptocurrency and there still are not. Therefore, that issue was perhaps not within the remit of the legislation. When it came to other aspects of the Bill, I presumed that we would have gone through the usual channels and passages in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that we did not meet, but that did not include the issue of cryptocurrency in this legislation.

[Samantha Dixon]

However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote.

One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.

I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so. One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration.

Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take.

I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented.

In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them.

It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference. I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way.

So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, Dame Siobhain, but am I allowed to speak to new clauses 42 and 43?

[The Chair]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you very much for your nod of assent, Dame Siobhain, and to the Clerk.

This group of new clauses are integral to the Bill. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford, said they relate to one of the holes in this legislation. As I outlined earlier, electoral reform legislation generally comes to this House probably once every decade, and that is why we should treat it as important and use it to try to right some of the wrongs or deficiencies within our electoral system.

We seriously believe that the rights of overseas voters are important. Let us cast our minds back to what seems like an age ago, when we had the evidence sessions of this Bill Committee. Each of our respective political parties, including the governing party, has honourable volunteers trying to advocate the rights of voters living abroad. At the moment, there is no attempt from the Government to try to right some of the wrongs and include overseas voters in our democratic process as they should be.

New clause 43 is similar to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Guildford in new clause 8. It would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to grant overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passports. New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections. We believe that those are proportionate and sensible measures to include some overseas voters.

I understand there may be an intervention that says, “What if people cannot get to consulates or embassies?” We believe new clause 42 would be the first step to ensure a full review of the overseas elector system. We understand that some people could be excluded because of geography, but we believe that it would be a step towards increasing the low engagement rate that we have seen in past elections.

On new clause 43, there is a democratic deficit with overseas voters. We think it should be made easier to register to vote as an overseas elector. Therefore, when people renew their passports, we believe that the new gov.uk one-stop-shop website that the Government set up—I used it the other day—would be a perfect online tool for that. That would help the participation rate of overseas electors, which, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, is notoriously low and something we all want to improve.

The Elections Act introduced a series of measures to support British citizens living overseas. That included votes for life, by removing the previous 15-year cap on being registered. However, the Electoral Commission’s evaluation of the 2024 general election found a series of practical obstacles in the way of overseas voters—we heard from them at the evidence session—especially for those who live a long way away and may be unable to send their postal votes back in time.

Only 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted, and the return rate in Australia was a mere 6%, as evidenced in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election. That is nothing less than tangible disenfranchisement, and that needs to be corrected.

In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to do that by establishing at least a feasibility study on how we do that. This is very similar to discussions with regard to cryptocurrency; by using those organisations that gave evidence, every party can feed into the review and the feasibility study. That is perfectly admirable, but I argue that that is a longer-term thing. Our new clauses 42 and 43 would bring in practicable steps now to engage that participatory process. As I say, we perfectly accept that it would not solve every issue, but it would include those participation rates.

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.

Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.

I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.

The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting

“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”

within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.

However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.

I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.

It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.

I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Absent Voting

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.

This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.

Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—

“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.

(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49

Power to obtain election-related information etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 50 and 51 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.

Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.

Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.

Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.

What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.

Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.

These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56?

Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent?

The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever.

I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates—

I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government.

I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed. The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings.

Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations.

Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited. For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.

[Paul Holmes]

I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.

[Lisa Smart]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.

New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.

On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.

In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.

Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.

On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.

We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.

New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had

“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”

that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.

The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.

The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.

The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.

In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.

New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.

Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.

Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.

[Samantha Dixon]

The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc

--- Later in debate ---

I am conscious that the Rycroft review made a recommendation to include some additional, broader categories of risk factor. We are carefully considering all the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a Government response in due course. Where appropriate, we will table amendments to the Bill. I hope that the Opposition are reassured by those comments.

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme.

As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure.

I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation.

Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments.

We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation.

We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill.

The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments.

I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.

[Lisa Smart]

We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further.

The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments? The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear?

The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner. She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments.

I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton]

Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.

I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.

In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.

I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.

I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:

“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”

If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?

[Samantha Dixon]

We will continue to work through the Representation of the People Bill in Committee, through line-by-line scrutiny. I look forward to continuing that work with the hon. Gentleman, and we will discuss that then.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.

Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.

The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.

Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—

“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Seniority of electoral registration officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.

By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Anonymous registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.

As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.

Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Pre-election applications for registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.

The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.

An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.

Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.

This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.

[Samantha Dixon]

As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.

Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.

Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.

We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.

Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In one of our evidence sessions, we heard clearly  from a KC who said there were almost no examples of personation prior to the introduction of mandatory ID. We also heard, quite alarmingly, that about 1.7% of people—potentially enough to swing an election—were turned away at polling stations under the current system. Clearly, this is about getting the balance right. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly feel that the balance is currently right, given the evidence we heard in that session?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman’s figures are slightly wrong. It was 0.8% of people who were not able to vote at the last general election due to being turned away without identification.

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the official figures, but we heard from election volunteers that they believe that the official figures are not accurate, because that is only the people who made it to the clerk’s desk. They saw lots of evidence of people being turned away at the door because they were arriving without identification.

[Paul Holmes]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.

Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.

[Paul Holmes]

I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.

The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.

[Samantha Dixon]

The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.

Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.

Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.

Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.

We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.

[Paul Holmes]

We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.

Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Police contact form

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—

New Clause 56

“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance

(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.

(2) The guidance must include information about—

(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;

(b) physical and online security measures; and

(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.

(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.

(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”

This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.

The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.

New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.

The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.

Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.

The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.

The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.

However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.

In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.

Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.

Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.

We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.

Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.

Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.

Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?

I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.

If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.

I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.

[Paul Holmes]

I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:

“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”

We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.

I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld.

I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.

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

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Clause 47(3), which refers to the treatment of digital forms of bank cards, says that, in digital form, they are a specified document and valid for ID purposes

“only if a person can form a reasonable view about whether it is a specified document by means of visual inspection alone.”

That is a significant burden to place on a polling clerk, the returning officer or another election official—the paragraph does not specify who that person is—to determine whether, when an individual shows them an image that may or may not be that person’s bank card, which is not required to contain a photograph or anything like that, it is the genuine article. Particularly given the significant growth of online banking, does my hon. Friend agree that that opens to door to this supporting impersonation in a way that would constitute electoral fraud?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.

I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.

The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

While the majority of young people already possess a bank card, they may not have other forms of ID like a driving licence or a passport. Does the hon. Member think that allowing a bank card will encourage more 16 and 17-year olds to participate in the electoral process?

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024.

In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.

[Sam Rushworth]

I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation.

I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.

I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Let me indulge in an example. The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive man; he has knocked on a door in Hamble Valley on 2 May ahead of the local authority elections on 7 May, which he has talked about. At that point, the deadline for registering for the free ID has passed. The person who he has visited might have been busy—they might be in their early 20s working shifts—so they were not aware of the option to get free ID and that window has passed. In that circumstance, the bank card might be the only ID they have. If the hon. Gentleman does not allow that to be presented, they may not have the option to vote for his party’s candidate on 7 May. Does he accept that that is a problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.

[Andrew Lewin]

The hon. Member is right to call us friends, but let us be honest: we are unusual people who were involved in politics at a young age. That perhaps reflects many of us on the Committee. I ask the hon. Member again to reflect on the example of a busy shift worker. Their door was knocked a few days before the election. They cannot get the ID. They were not aware. Does the hon. Member accept that he has not quite addressed that challenge?

[Paul Holmes]

No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated.

Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. He has probably seen, like I have, leaflets from all the political parties represented on this Committee that tell people what form of ID is acceptable way before we even get into the election period or the election date is just around the corner. Does he agree that there are multiple touchpoints for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for when they cast their vote?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will give way briefly; then I want to finish my remarks. This will be the last intervention.

[Warinder Juss]

I have a quick question. We have a crisis in democracy at the moment in that there are not as many people going out to vote as there should be. Should we not be making it easier for people to vote, rather than more difficult?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause.

As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country. Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud.

We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged. They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote.

Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt. On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate.

I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it. I urge the Minister to change her mind before we get to the final stages of the Bill.

[Lewis Cocking]

I rise in support of Opposition amendment 30, and I will make some comments new clause 19 as tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The biggest thing that puts votes at risk is to keep changing the eligible ID on the list. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley about the different names that can appear on a bank card. We are yet to hear from the Government what name would need to be on a bank card—would it need to be the person’s initials, their surname, their first name, or their middle initial and surname? That will make it very difficult for clerks and polling station staff to adjudicate in busy polling stations.

If guidance comes out and says, “You need your first initial and your surname. We won’t accept anything else,” that will be confusing for people. People will turn up with bank cards that are not eligible under this system. The Government are trying to make it easier for people to cast their vote by not safeguarding democracy and not requiring ID. That will create confusion.

I do not see how we have come to the conclusion that we should put bank cards on the list. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other forms of ID were considered when she sat down with her officials and said, “I know what we are going to do. We are going to add bank cards to this list.” What other forms of ID were considered, and what was considered not appropriate? I think that is a fair question to the Minister.

We also heard from the shadow Minister about electronic bank cards, which will be a particular issue when people turn up to the polling station and polling clerks need to check them. When I did telling at polling stations before people needed photographic ID to vote, most people turned up with ID anyway, and most people I spoke to were shocked when I told them that they did not need ID. The fact that voter ID has added integrity to the process, and that most people now think voting is more secure, is a good thing. I do not support new clause 19, which would be a step backwards in that regard.

We can all play our part in enabling people to access free voter ID. The hon. Member for Ashford suggested earlier that 16 and 17-year-olds might be put off voting if they did not have ID, so why have the Government not come forward with a programme to give out free voter ID at secondary schools when people are registering to vote? That would be a way to solve some of the problems that he thinks may come out of the Bill. The Government could be doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.

I want to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.

We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.

There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Dr Chowns]

I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.

Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is

“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.

That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.

For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.

During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are

“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”

The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that

“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”

She was also right when she said:

“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]

We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.

I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.

Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.

Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.

I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.

Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.

Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.

Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that

“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.

Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.

The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.

Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.

Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.

At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?

Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.

Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.

There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.

Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.

Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:

“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”

It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:

“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”

Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I smile at the idea that it is convenient for us to pass the law; it is never convenient to pass a law.

The hon. Gentleman has set out a number of ages at which people can do different things. Most people would agree that adulthood is not the flick of switch but a continuum. We do things at different stages; many would argue that voting is at the lower end and is one of the earliest things that we should do. That was the position of the Conservative party when it came to choosing three of our recent Prime Ministers; 15-year-old Conservative party members had more say over who was the Prime Minister of this land than the rest of us. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

[Paul Holmes]

The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes.

Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true.

Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.

[Sam Rushworth]

Every political party has equal opportunity to appeal to every voter. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that Labour party politics is more attractive to younger voters?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are.

Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process.

I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence submitted by the Electoral Reform Society says that research has shown that the younger people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives? What he has said about there being no evidence is not correct.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates.

The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16.

The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said:

“we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.”

He goes on:

“I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”.

The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?

[Sam Rushworth]

I am happy to share my personal view on that point with the hon. Member. As was mentioned a moment ago, growing up is not a moment that happens between one night and the next. It is a continuum, and different ages apply to different things; people have to wait until they are 21 to do some things. One vote is one grain of sand on the beach. It allows people to meaningfully participate in democracy. That is, of course, entirely different from actually being an elected representative themselves. To me, that is a fairly obvious point.

[Paul Holmes]

What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.

I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.

There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.

I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.

The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.

Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—

[Samantha Dixon]

Which is the point.

[Paul Holmes]

Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?

If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.

[Paul Holmes]

What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.

If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.

The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.

[Sam Rushworth]

I feel that, particularly in the previous intervention, the Opposition are still tying themselves up in knots around the idea that the transition from childhood to adulthood has to happen within a millisecond of someone turning a particular age, rather than under-standing that there is a process of becoming an adult and we allow people different rights and responsibilities that are appropriate for those stages.

The hon. Gentleman asked why I feel that there is a difference between voting and standing to be elected. It is the difference between someone being able to choose a person to represent them and having to listen to and represent others. They are two different jobs. The Conservatives know that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would tell me that he believes a 15-year-old should be Prime Minister, but they allowed 15-year-olds to elect who is our Prime Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.

I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.

[David Simmonds]

I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?

[Paul Holmes]

That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.

I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?

[Warinder Juss]

It is misguided to compare the ability to vote with being a representative. There is a huge step between someone having the right to decide who should represent them and being that representative themselves. Many people well beyond the age of 18 would be able to vote for their representative, but would not necessarily be in a position to be a representative themselves.

[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 ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.

To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.

The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.

I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.

As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.

Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.

The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.

By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.

Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.

Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped

“in a cycle of disadvantage”.

The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced

“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.

She also found that

“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”

I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.

It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.

There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.

There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.

I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.

[Dr Chowns]

As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.

As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.

[Paul Holmes]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.

The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.

I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.

The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.

The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.

The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.

I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.

[Paul Holmes]

It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.

I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?

The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.

The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.

Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.

The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?

[Samantha Dixon]

The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I have covered clause 7, so if Members will indulge me, I will turn to clause 8.

Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. The first circumstance in which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared is if that disclosure is necessary for registration or the conduct of an election, referendum, recall petition or other poll. That simply allows electoral administrators to carry out their work.

An example in action would be an electoral registration officer using the data of a 14 or 15-year-old to conduct the annual canvass. The canvass would help ensure that the young person in question is still accurately registered at the address electoral administrators have on file. Another illustration of the purpose of this provision would relate to the preparation of a poll. For example, clerks at polling stations must have an extract of the electoral register for electors who will vote at that polling station. There may be circumstances in which that extract is prepared in advance of polling day, and this provision allows it to include individuals who will turn 16 on polling day, but who at the moment of the preparation of the extract are still 15.

The second circumstance provides that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared in accordance with one of a limited number of supply enactments—specifically, those listed in clause 11. A supply enactment is a provision to allow either the entire register or the relevant part of the register to be supplied to a certain individual or organisation. The specific supply enactments where the disclosure of the registration information of under-16s is permitted are listed in clause 11, and as such I will discuss them in detail during the debate on clause 11.

However, this clause applies two crucial limits on disclosure of the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds as part of a relevant supply enactment, as I will now explain. First, disclosure under a relevant supply enactment may be made only for purposes relating to an election at which a given person will be entitled to vote. That will allow the information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities relating to that poll. For example, it will allow 15-year-olds who will be 16 in time for a given poll to be sent campaigning materials relating to that poll.

Secondly, there is a limit on disclosure under relevant supply enactments that requires that such disclosures must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned. That provides an extra safeguard against the disclosure of any information about young people that is not absolutely necessary for the legitimate activities in question. For example, candidates have no need to know the exact age of a young person beyond the fact that they will be 16 on the date of a poll, so they will not receive such information.

The third circumstance in which the registration information of under-16s may be disclosed under clause 8 is where such information is necessary for the purpose of a criminal investigation relating to an electoral offence. The provisions in the Bill prevent under-16s from being fined for failing to register to vote, but there are other electoral offences that rightly apply regardless of age group. Those include offences such as a fraudulent application to register to vote, or the offence of personation, where someone attempts to steal another’s vote. Such serious offences should be investigated no matter who commits them, and this clause allows for those criminal investigations to take place unimpeded.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister outlined the criminal charge of personation. Does she think that watering down photographic ID and using bank cards for identification will make it easier or harder for someone to be convicted of electoral personation?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I will return to that point when we debate the relevant clauses.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought I would try.

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister for doing my job for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny.

As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy.

Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified.

Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect.

The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties.

Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists.

Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away.

Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes.

Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the Minister for giving us an extensive and very in-depth description of what those technical clauses—7 to 14—outline. I cannot claim to do those clauses credit in the way the Minister has. I will just briefly ask a number of questions on those technical clauses and then resume my seat—which I am sure many Members will be pleased to hear.

The Minister has outlined these various technical clauses, and the Opposition are not concerned that they might be controversial. As I said earlier, the issue of principle rather than pragmatism in re-engineering a system to where we basically currently are to cover the people that are being enfranchised is not controversial. However, there is a slight complication that could come out of some of these changes relating to overseas voters. We know that they are not really catered for in the Bill.

We heard a lot of evidence in the Bill Committee that a number of overseas voters are essentially disenfranchised. Looking at younger overseas voters and the precepts of these clauses applying to 14 and 15-year-olds, in some countries there may be a social media ban, for example. Similarly, in some countries it would not be easy for a candidate to access the information of people who will be eligible to vote at 16, but who are not covered by these clauses for the preparation at 14 and 15. Opposition Members would argue that this could have unintended consequences for a candidate’s ability to secure that data and approach those people as if they were living within the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and whether it would be, not dangerous, but an added disincentive for an overseas voter to engage and vote within the British or UK political process.

On clause 13, as with various other Bills that the Government have put forward, I am concerned by the House’s affirmative procedure giving the Minister or the Secretary of State a huge amount of power to unilaterally bring in changes. I do not think that it makes for good democracy or scrutiny of legislation. We discussed this countless times during the Committee of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where the Secretary of State will be given the power to make a decision through the affirmative procedure via secondary legislation, and individual Members of this House across all parties—but especially minor parties—cannot scrutinise that legislation in the way in which they should be able to. We all know how statutory instruments work in this place. Those Committees are probably among the briefer meetings that Members in this House have.

The Minister needs to reflect on the fact that the scrutiny and delivery of many of this Government’s pieces of legislation has not always achieved the right balance or tipped the scales in the right way. Members should have the opportunity to scrutinise properly and make changes to secondary legislation that the Secretary of State is empowered to bring. I ask her to look at that again and consider whether there is a better way. I understand the need to consult the Electoral Commission, but it is this place that makes the legislation and it is this place that should approve that legislation in a proper and thorough manner. I do not think that making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is the right way to go.

However, we will not oppose any of the clauses, which, as Members can tell by my varied and wide-ranging speech, are very technical. I hope that the Minister will address my questions.

[The Chair]

I call Samantha Dixon to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.

[Paul Holmes]

As we have heard, the clause establishes a duty for local authorities in Great Britain to raise awareness and provide assistance to certain young people— particularly those who are looked after by the local authority, and those who are eligible for continuing care—in registering to vote. While the intention to support young voters is commendable, we believe that the clause has several limitations. Not only is its scope narrowly defined, but it is also vaguely defined by the words “raise awareness” and “provide assistance”. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, I want to expand on that ever so slightly.

As the clause is narrowly defined, it excludes other groups that may face barriers to registration, such as the homeless youth, young carers or those in unstable housing. The clause places significant responsibility on local authorities to determine and implement the steps necessary to fulfil the duty. While this should not be a requirement in legislation, there has also not been any signal or indication from Ministers of any Department that additional funding, staffing or guidance has been considered, which risks creating an inconsistent application process across different areas.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned earlier, we have both been lead members for children and young people’s services. It is not insulting to hard-working local authorities, lead members and officers across the country to say that there can be varying interpretations of the legal duties placed on them—whether they relate to vulnerable people in care or local authority children’s homes. Can the Minister provide reassurance that she will ensure that local authorities across the country will follow a universal interpretation? Due to the narrow scope of the people that the clause identifies, as well as the quite vague language of “provide assistance” and “raise awareness”, it risks creating a patchwork quilt across the UK and a variation in interpretation, which needs to be tightened up.

The Opposition are not opposed to the clause; it is admirable and does what is necessary. However, it needs to be tighter so that people responsible for implementing this legislation can do so in the best way possible, notwithstanding the fact that council and local authority officers dealing with young people do so every day throughout the country.

The limited resources may struggle to reach all eligible young people, particularly those who move between authority areas, or who are placed outside their home authority for extended periods. Additionally, the clause does not include measurable targets or deadlines, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising and assistance efforts. Finally, the type of support provided is narrowly focused on registration itself, and does not address broader barriers, such as literacy, digital access or understanding of the electoral process. The geographical limitation of the clause to Great Britain also creates inconsistencies across the UK.

Overall, while clause 15 represents a positive step towards increasing voter registration—I hope the Minister will speak later about raising awareness and enabling younger people through the education system—it focuses only on registration of vulnerable young people. Its narrow scope, reliance on local authority capacity and clear lack of performance measures may limit its practical impact. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that those issues have been looked at, and I hope she can alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.

[Paul Holmes]

I am pretty agnostic about new clause 44 because I think it is quite vague, but I understand the reason it has been tabled. Earlier I outlined a concern that I do not believe the education system is quite yet able to make sure that our younger people get the education that they should have before they vote in a national election, notwithstanding the fact that the education system needs to be impartial.

The Minister will know that some types of schools, such as academies, are not necessarily subject to the national curriculum. The legislation in these clauses is quite vague, as I mentioned. I am not sure that there is concrete action from the Minister’s Department and from the Department for Education on a cross-ministerial committee or something, to make sure that the two sides are being matched up to implement this legislation.

Will the Minister try to allay some of my concerns, and those of other hon. Members—perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause—about whether the education system will be well equipped, and whether all schools are going to be required to prepare young people for the new duty that they are going to be given?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly one more time?

[Samantha Dixon]

I was going to come to the points the hon. Gentleman had raised.

[Paul Holmes]

I want to add another one, if that is possible. The Minister is being most generous, and she has shown utter determination not to accept new clause 44. Does she think there is merit in reviewing how this new enfranchisement will work, perhaps through existing mechanisms when there is a review of how a general election has been conducted? I know that is not every year, but when organisations look at voting and participation rates and attitude surveys at or after a general election, is there an opportunity to legislate for a review, at the end of each Parliament or the start of a new one, into the attitudes and voting habits of those new electors, as part of a wider review of behaviour in the last general election?

[Samantha Dixon]

With respect to hon. Members who are clearly thinking on their feet as we debate this issue, I point out that a review of every general election is done by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. As it has been involved in this Bill and the legislation that falls from it, I am sure that it will be particularly interested in this approach to the extension of enfranchisement.

Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley’s point regarding children in care and care leavers. I am pleased to join Opposition Members in declaring I was as a former council leader with corporate responsibility for young people in local authority care. I am acutely aware of their needs and the additional support they require. I have worked with council officers who routinely assist young people, particularly care leavers, in registering to vote and supporting them in the appropriate way as they do vote. I feel that electoral registration officers, with their unique roles within local authorities, will amply be able to support looked-after children and care leavers to exercise their right to vote. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Registration without an application

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—

“(f) if the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching.”

This amendment requires the registration officer to register certain electors only when their existence has been verified through three different datasets.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 18 and 19 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Amendment 27, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Sections 17, 18 and 19 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published an independent review into the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters incorrectly being automatically added to the electoral roll.”

This amendment would prevent the provisions on automatic voter registration coming into force until the Secretary of State had published an independent review of the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters being incorrectly automatically added to the electoral roll.

[Paul Holmes]

I put on record my thanks to the officials in the Box for making that last set of amendments discussable, because they were so technical. We had an interesting debate, none the less.

We come to the crucial clauses that relate to automatic voter registration. I will speak on behalf of the official Opposition to amendments 26 and 27, which stand in my name. Automatic registration, which has been a clear aim of this Government from the beginning, would contradict the whole approach behind individual electoral registration—that individuals are responsible for registering and that there should be proper checks to ensure that the right people are eligible to be on the electoral roll. Automatic registration will result in more inaccurate entries and opens the door to electoral fraud, undoing the improvements delivered by individual registration.

Individual registration was implemented to stop fraudulent electoral registration, to ensure a more accurate register with fewer errors, and to remove the outdated concept that heads of household, often men, could decide who should be on the electoral roll. We argue that automatic registration would undermine those reforms. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially of people who have moved recently. Registration by algorithm may add people to electoral rolls who do not live in the area because of out-of-date entries on other databases; it might also add people who have a residence but are not eligible to vote, such as certain second home owners, unqualified Commonwealth voters and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.

EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope the Minister will forgive me—it is quite possible, indeed likely, that this is my ignorance—but she outlined the datasets the EROs will analyse. Will she clarify whether those will be the same datasets in each geographical area? If not, does that not risk creating a different set of parameters and methods for who would and would not be added to the register, which cannot be analysed at the end of the pilot? Does that make sense?

[Samantha Dixon]

Regrettably, the hon. Member may have to explain that to me again in a different way.

[Paul Holmes]

That is no reflection on the Minister; I do not think I explained it particularly well. The Minister outlined that the ERO will assess datasets to ascertain whether to add somebody to the electoral roll automatically. In the context of the pilots, would those datasets be the same types—the same original information sources—or could they vary, depending on who the ERO is and which geographical location they are in when adding someone to the electoral roll?

[Samantha Dixon]

The legislation takes forward the principle of piloting. The detail of those pilots will come through in secondary legislation. I will provide more clarity, if I can, for the hon. Member, but the principle of piloting is what we are talking about.

[Paul Holmes]

I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, because the concern I have is genuine; otherwise, I would be intentionally misleading the House, which I am not, I would not and I do not. The reason I asked the question is that we are about to take a significant step towards automatic registration. We have a disagreement, but that is what the Government are going to end up doing. It is therefore important that the data presents a secure and reliable way of putting people on the register. The reason I ask whether there will be different datasets or sources is that we cannot properly analyse the pilots if people are using different datasets.

How can the Minister be satisfied by saying that the principle of pilots must go ahead, but that the Government will unveil the detail in secondary legislation? We have seen this with this Government before, so it is not personal to the Minister, but that is a terrible way to draft legislation. The Minister and the Government are asking the Committee to make a significant change to the electoral registration system in this country, but they cannot tell us—we are straying into the next group, so I will reserve my comments for that—what the basic parameters will look like. How is that good public policymaking?

[Samantha Dixon]

To offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, as set out in the Government’s policy paper, “A blueprint for modern digital government”, “technology presents us with” the opportunity to

“improve the way that government delivers for the public”.

Our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, harnessing existing data from across Government to move to an automated system. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess whether the combined dataset that is already used to check registration applications and support the annual review of electoral registers could also help identify people who may not be registered. We are also working with the Home Office to explore whether its data could help to indicate whether people who are identified as eligible, but who are unregistered, appear to meet the nationality and immigration status requirements to vote. I hope that provides some comfort and clarity to the hon. Member. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment and commend clauses 17 to 19 and schedule 2 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

After the Minister’s winding up, I think it is even more necessary to push amendments 26 and 27 to a vote—particularly amendment 26, which concerns data checks. The Government are proposing a major change without the detail necessary to inform our decision on whether it should happen and with a lack of detail on the system to be proposed. They also cannot comment on what the datasets are or whether they could be different in different geographical locations. For all those reasons, I feel that I have to push both amendments to a vote.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring full transparency and integrity following any changes is even more important at the moment, given that the integrity of our electoral system is being called into question, including by some parties represented in the House of Commons that say that we cannot rely on the fairness and integrity of elections under the existing rules? Does he agree that the avoidance of future challenge and dissonance relies on this Committee’s being clear what the changes we are being asked to vote on mean in practice? If we cannot be clear with the voters about what this means for them, we should not be doing it. We should be coming back later when we can be clear.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.

[Samantha Dixon]

I have to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the integrity of the process will be challenged; that is not the Government’s intention in any way. The principle is that we will use the same Government datasets in each location, but also allow local EROs to use the local datasets that they have access to in addition to Government datasets. The principle of piloting is to test robustness and integrity—that is precisely why the pilots are so important.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister said that the intention is not for these things to be challenged on the basis of integrity, but that does not provide clarity or certainty at all—it does not mean that there will not be a challenge or that it will not be successful. That is because of the lack of detail and transparency. The Committee is expected to decide on a new system without the parameters being laid out clearly and to rely on the Secretary of State to determine what automatic registration should look like through secondary legislation after a pilot. The details and the systems have not been outlined clearly to the Committee. That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would ensure that an electoral returning officer has three individual forms of check.

The Minister just outlined that EROs in different locations can access different datasets to reassure themselves that they should be putting someone on the roll. That sounds very similar to an ERO being able to check the register for three datasets, which is outlined in amendment 26. It seems to me that she has accepted the principle that EROs might need to determine the security of automatically enrolling someone through a number of datasets. Why are the Government so scared to ask for three? That would ensure the integrity and security that the Minister claims she wants and that I believe she wants. However, she is resisting amendment 26, which does exactly what she claims she wants to and adds a bit more detail on how the pilots will go forward.

I am afraid that for those reasons—a complete lack of clarity and transparency, and an expectation that the Opposition should trust the Government to come forward with the right decision in secondary legislation—we will have to press both amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope to address them as we go forward.

Clause 21 makes clear that piloting regulations may be used to explore this ambition further, including by testing new and innovative ways of using Government data to identify individuals and support them to register, as well as testing potential improvements to administrative processes. Our ambition is to support a modern, efficient registration system that makes participation straightforward for citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The clause plays an important role in providing the framework through which that ambition can be pursued.

Clause 22 builds on clause 21 by providing further clarity on the scope of the piloting powers set out in clause 20. It makes clear that pilots will take place in one or more areas, and that they may assess the impact of new registration methods on specific demographic groups. The clause also confirms that, in most circumstances, pilots will proceed only with the consent of the relevant electoral registration officer. It is right that those directly responsible for administering the pilot are engaged, informed and supportive of the approach being taken.

Furthermore, clause 22 allows pilot regulations, on a temporary basis, to create, suspend or disapply an offence or financial penalty where that is necessary for the effective conduct of a pilot. However, they cannot increase penalties beyond existing legal limits, nor introduce penalties or offences for individuals who fail to register or update their details. That ensures that the legal framework operates sensibly during the testing period while maintaining appropriate protections and proportionality.

Clause 22 provides breadth, flexibility and practicality to the proposed piloting framework, giving clarity to officials without imposing an overly rigid or exhaustive set of rules. In doing so, the provisions ensure that pilot schemes can be designed in a measured, proportionate and genuinely useful way, supporting the Government to realise their ambition to modernise electoral registration and make it simpler for citizens to engage with the democratic process.

I now turn to clause 23, which provides that any pilot regulations made under the new power conferred on the Secretary of State in clause 20 must be made by statutory instrument. Parliament is the proper forum for the scrutiny and oversight of such powers. Electoral registration is a matter of significant importance and sensitivity, and it is therefore right that parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine in full any proposed regulations establishing a new pilot.

Clause 23 provides that all regulations made under this piloting power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except where the regulations do no more than extend an existing pilot for no longer than 12 months, or amend the deadline by which the Electoral Commission must publish its evaluation report—in which case the SI will be subject to the negative procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure for the vast majority of cases reflects the long-standing convention that changes to electoral law should receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Safeguarding the security and inclusivity of our electoral registration system must remain paramount.

Clause 24 provides that the Electoral Commission will evaluate any pilots and produce a report. The Electoral Commission serves as an essential independent guardian of the integrity and transparency of our democratic processes. By upholding rigorous standards and providing impartial oversight, it helps ensure that electoral matters across the United Kingdom are conducted properly, securely and with public confidence.

By placing the Electoral Commission’s independent assessment at the heart of the evaluation of any electoral registration pilot, we ensure that Parliament, stakeholders and the public receive a clear, objective and authoritative appraisal of any pilot’s effectiveness. The clause reinforces our commitment to rigorous independent scrutiny by requiring the report to address specific issues. That includes an assessment of the extent to which a pilot has met its objectives and an evaluation of whether the changes made by the regulations represent a cost-effective means of achieving them.

Although we are ambitious about delivering a modern, more automated electoral registration system fit for the 21st century, we are equally mindful that robust processes and independent evaluation must remain integral to the testing of any new registration method. Clause 25 provides definitions for the four key terms used throughout clauses 20 to 24. This is an interpretive provision that defines key terms and is necessary for the operation of those clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. I do not know why I said that—it is a habit. But it is always lovely to see you; it is reminiscent of the 2015 general election.

[The Chair]

Likewise!

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you very much.

These amendments relate to the pilot schemes. I do believe that the Government have been slightly naughty in how they are trying to promote these pilots. Not once have they consulted the Political Parties Panel or reached out on a cross-party basis to consult on changes to the franchise or to electoral systems, or on the cancellation of local elections.

The Government are completely entitled to set out a scope for pilots, but the clauses lack any detail on what we should expect the pilots to look like and what they are supposed to be delivering. Where is the detail about the datasets they will use? The transparency and sense of integrity are not there. The Minister said she wanted to reassure us—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I apologise for terminating the hon. Member’s contribution, but there is a Division. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. We will resume at 4.16 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will continue from where we were so rudely interrupted.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. It was a wonderful election campaign—oh, I’ve done that bit.

The clauses deal with voter pilot schemes. As I had started to outline, we are concerned that when it comes to electoral changes, voting age changes or anything to do with the electoral system, the Government have not really been transparent. They have not worked, as previous Governments did, on a cross-party basis through interaction and meetings with the parliamentary parties panel. As with the last few clauses, they have not outlined the detail necessary to satisfy us to support the clause and rely on secondary legislation.

Although I know that the Minister is a Minister of the utmost integrity—I have always believed that, so she should take that as read—she said that we should be reassured that voter pilot schemes would not be used to amend the franchise, which is the aim of my amendment 28, but the Secretary of State said in the House, two days before he cancelled local elections, that he would not cancel local elections. He was then taken to court, and it was found that the decision was not lawful. The Minister will forgive us if we are not entirely confident in the reassurances given, when Government Ministers have given reassurances on the Floor of the House and then done something else.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend refers to the recent judicial review. My understanding is that, rather than losing the judicial review, the Government actually offered no defence. They conceded because they did not wish to be transparent about the decision-making process that the Secretary of State had followed. Subsequent freedom of information requests sought to get under exactly what was happening, but clearly there was correspondence that the Government did not wish to place in the public domain. They preferred to abandon their devolution plans rather than concede on that point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a great starting point for a Government who are asking us to take them on trust about pilot schemes with a complete absence of detail and no indication of who would be prioritised for auto-enrolment, what the geographical basis would be or what the decision-making process would be? It is not a good basis for asking us to take them on trust when the Government have not been willing to be transparent about elections that they were determined would go ahead, only to cancel them within literally 24 hours.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I say, this Minister is a Minister of integrity, but I find this out in opposition. I work for a shadow Secretary of State; the Minister works for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has been found to have said things in the Chamber that have turned out not to be the case. It is therefore not right for the Opposition to have confidence that we can rely on a reassurance from the Minister that the pilots will not be used to amend the franchise.

The wording of amendment 28 is so clear that there is no room for manoeuvre. Why does the Minister not accept the amendment and show us that her reassurance is worth the paper it is written on? The amendment would not fundamentally change the passage of the Bill or the parameters of the pilot, but it would provide reassurance that the Government will not use the pilots and whatever comes out of them for a reassessment through the Electoral Commission. We do not know the parameters of the pilots; their geography, as my hon. Friend says; who will be included in them; or the datasets that will be used. The Minister should accept the amendment and give us reassurance that the pilots will not be used to change the franchise.

The Opposition have repeatedly asked and challenged Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State when he took office, about whether local elections would go ahead. The Secretary of State then tried to stop those elections. We know why the Government did not want anybody to see the evidence or the correspondence. It was a pattern that this Government have shown before: putting their own political interests before the interests of the electoral system and before having a credible plan or a credible defence. That is why they were found out. That is why when I looked the Secretary of State in the eye and asked whether he would cancel the local elections, he said he would not—and then he did, on a Thursday morning when he would not get the scrutiny that he deserved from a full House of Commons.

[David Simmonds]

On the pattern of behaviour, the Minister has set out very clearly that the Government wish to rely on the independent Electoral Commission to appraise the outcome of the pilot schemes. But what we do not know—because the Government are not willing to set it out to this Committee, which it is asking to approve the principle of the pilots—is what it will appraise those pilot projects against. We do not know at this stage what the Government seek to achieve through the pilot projects. We therefore cannot assume that the Electoral Commission is in a position to give us the genuinely independent perspective that we expect of it.

Historically, there has been much debate about whether the Electoral Commission should be given a mandate by Parliament. One useful thing about such a mandate is that it would be able to say, for example, that a criterion for appraising pilots is the use of equality impact assessments to determine the impact of the pilots on people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, on younger voters specifically, and on younger voters with learning disabilities, who may be a subset of such voters. Without any clear sense from the Government of what the pilots will seek to achieve and how that will be implemented consistently, it is difficult for the Committee to be confident that the pilots will genuinely contribute to the integrity of the poll.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that in very recent history the Government have completely ignored the view of the Electoral Commission anyway. When the Government said that they would not cancel local elections, and then did, and then got found out in court and did not defend the case, the Electoral Commission said repeatedly that it disagreed with the Government’s stance on the local elections because the Government had not consulted and had breached the general rule that EROs and local authorities should be given at least six months’ notice of a change of poll.

The Electoral Commission was very clear, and I think it went as far as condemning the Government’s decision, but the Government ignored it. The Minister can outline how the Electoral Commission will be consulted, but they have ignored it before and it is very likely—in fact, given the pattern of behaviour of the Secretary of State, it is almost certain—that the Government will find the answer that they want to find, regardless of what the Electoral Commission review says.

We remain sceptical. This is not personal against the Minister. I like the Minister intensely—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I couldn’t think of another word. I like the Minister a lot, and I think she is a woman of integrity, but the pattern of behaviour from this Government is astounding, on consultation, on transparency and, actually, in Parliament. Ministers, who are governed by the ministerial code, have said that they will not do something and then gone ahead and done it anyway, in the cynical way that we have come to see from every Department in this Government. It is rotten from the top down.

On the pilots, the Minister has been clear that the parameters are not well established in the Bill and that she will want to come back with secondary legislation. Clause 20, “Power to pilot changes to the voter registration process”, states that the

“Secretary of State may by regulations make voter registration provision…in connection with…a register of parliamentary electors maintained under section 9 of RPA 1983”

and

“a register of local government electors”.

However, where it says that “regulations must specify”, there are certainly no parameters, and she is asking us to give the Government a blank cheque.

The Minister is asking us to approve pilots without any detail on what they may look like. She is also not saying how she will test whether those pilots are successful. When she winds up, will she outline to the Committee exactly what the parameters are for the pilots and the tests for what looks like success when they are finished?

[Lewis Cocking]

I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech. Does he share my concern that the pilots may be done on the basis of council areas, but that everyone should be auto-enrolled at the same time, rather than creating two lists of electors for a general election? Does he agree that that, in itself, will undermine the next general election and undermine democracy as a whole? Does he also agree that the Government must provide more detail about these demos, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose who they do and do not want to enrol, with this Committee and the House having no say in the matter?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely. As I have attempted to outline, and as I think my hon. Friend is saying, without such detail why should people trust a word that the Government say? It has been the same with other legislation, as I know from being a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, and it is pretty clear that it comes from the top of Government.

Let us look at the detail of clauses 21 and 22. Subsections (3) and (5) of clause 21 state that it

“includes provision relating to…the identification of individuals who are not registered”—

that goes without saying—and

“the identification of changes relevant to entries in the register, and…the maintenance of registers”,

as well as

“the form of the register…the procedure to be followed in the preparation of the register…the publication of the register”,

but there is no detail. If this Government are so clear about what they want to do with automatic registration, they should set out clearly the parameters for its implementation and should have an idea of what they want from it, but I must say that everything in the Bill about what they want from the pilots is fairly generic guff.

[Lewis Cocking]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that this measure could be reintroduced during the next parliamentary Session, when we can give a lot more thought to where the demos will take place and to the detail of who will be auto-enrolled first, and we can properly scrutinise the Government? As he rightly points out, this Government have made a number of U-turns. It is very difficult to trust a word that Ministers say or to know whether they will keep their word about the Bills they bring in. Does he agree that, rather than rushing the Bill through in this Session, the Government need to go away, think again and come back with fresh ideas when they put the legislation before Parliament in the next Session?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The Government have the luxury of being able to carry over this Bill. Its Report stage will be not in this Session, but in the next. Ministers have plenty of time to do this properly and not only give it proper scrutiny and listen to this Committee, but go away and think about it. Instead of bringing in amendments in secondary legislation, they could tell us what the pilots should look like and what they want to achieve from them. So far, the Bill does not do so.

My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have to finish the Bill by the end of this Session. The Committee has to finish in this Session, but Report can be held whenever the Government want after we come back for the next Session, because there is a carry-over order. There is no need to rush to Report and get the Bill through as quickly as possible. That mechanism is in place, so the Minister has time to strengthen this part of the Bill.

It is alien to me, but unfortunately it is a testament to the attitudes of this Government—and particularly this Department, when it comes to changing key indicators in terms of voting age, but also in terms of the way that people vote—that they want us to give them a blank cheque without giving us the details that any reasonable Member of this House would require.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made the constructive suggestion that we proceed on the basis of local authority areas for the use of the electoral roll in the local poll so that everybody who is standing or voting in the election can have confidence that they will be treated equally. Earlier in our debates, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out her sympathy with the proposal for the pilots, but I am sure that no Member of this House would be content to lose narrowly in an election, only to discover that in their constituency—perhaps alone in the country—there had been a programme to auto-enrol a specific cohort of voters who had not been auto-enrolled in the same way in neighbouring constituencies or in the rest of the country. That would fundamentally call into question the integrity of the poll.

I know that the Government have had serious concerns and reflections internally following the allegations made at the Gorton and Denton by-election. I do not think that most of us accept that those allegations are correct. None the less, the level of doubt that has been cast on elements of the process is of concern to Members across the House. The Government should be in listening mode. They should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and should seek to do this properly, so that all voters and candidates in elections can have confidence that they will be treated equally and consistently across the country.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for not responding to his very reasonable suggestion. If the Minister were to say that she wanted to base pilots across the country on a local authority area, I am sure that many local authorities would jump at the chance to be at the front of delivering it and would work with her to do so. However, it potentially calls into question the integrity of the polls when that is based on a certain characteristic, or on an area that does not necessarily cover the whole area in which people are entitled to vote.

There is a cross-boundary issue with general elections and local elections; my constituency has three local areas with three different EROs within its boundaries. The way in which the automatic registration pilots will go ahead is just not universal. I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, we Liberal Democrats support the Government on automatic voter registration. I have just one question for the Minister: can she confirm which datasets the Government plan to use when piloting AVR?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The existing canvass regime in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose. The current system requires the register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of the canvass to remain on the register. Electors who do not respond to canvass are removed from the register even if the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds data to confirm that they are eligible. That means there is a risk that a significant number of eligible electors are lost from the register, impacting its integrity and accuracy. The Government are legislating to address those challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass.

The aim of this reform is to move towards a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. Crucially, it will also avoid the arbitrary removal of eligible voters and improve the accuracy of the Northern Ireland register. Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, with whom we are working closely on the new system.

[Paul Holmes]

Can the Minister outline what political engagement she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what they make of these proposals, and whether she has had written communications from them on that?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points at a later date, if I may. However, the First Minister and officers attended one of our evidence sessions, and I have engaged with colleagues who attended drop-ins as a result of this legislation coming forward.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Bill passes, will it require a legislative consent motion?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will hopefully come to that point, but it will not.

The details of the new canvass system will be set out in regulations following consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, and will be subject to piloting. This change will support increased participation in elections in Northern Ireland and bring the Northern Ireland canvass system into closer alignment with Great Britain.

Clause 27 is a consequence of clause 26. Before making any regulations under clause 26, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission. Where the commission has been consulted, clause 27 places a duty on it to prepare a report about a proposal to make regulations under clause 26, which is the new power to amend the canvass.

Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission, and officials will work closely with the commission on it. It is important that the commission has an opportunity to consider the details of the new canvass system to ensure that the proposed changes are effective and robust before they are implemented. The provision mirrors the role that the Electoral Commission had when the canvass system was reformed in Great Britain.

Clause 28 is also a consequence of clause 26. The Government are legislating to address current challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass. The aim of this reform is to move toward a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. However, these are technical and complex changes, and it is important that we get them right, so it is proper that the new canvass system will be subject to successful piloting. We will work closely with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on the design of any pilots. I commend clause 28 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.

I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.

[David Simmonds]

Although we do not have a representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee, we have had a number of debates in which a variety of these issues have been raised, and we took evidence on them specifically. The electoral system, registration system and arrangements for elections have been different in Northern Ireland for some time anyway, and that reflects part of the fairly complex political history of that part of our United Kingdom. One of the commonalities that we have with Ireland is the ability of people there to cast their vote in general elections in the United Kingdom and vice versa.

Will the Minister set out—perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me that we need a bit more detail on this—what conversations have happened not just with the Northern Ireland Executive but with the Government of Ireland? A number of provisions mean that the Province, in which people will have the ability to vote as a United Kingdom voter and also, potentially, in Ireland, especially if they are dual electors, will have different electoral rules. It is particularly important that that is fully considered, especially before pilots, which might make further changes, are implemented without the element of local consent.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.

We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.

Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,

“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”

In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.

We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.

[Samantha Dixon]

To reassure Members, we have worked very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, as well as other devolved Governments, in the development of the Bill. Elections in Northern Ireland are an entirely reserved matter for the UK Government. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from all parties across Parliament were invited to come to drop-in sessions. A number of Northern Ireland colleagues did, and I also met the leadership of those parties that wished to meet me as we developed the legislation.

I beg your indulgence, Dame Siobhain, and that of the Committee: I should have spoken to clause 29 at the same time that I addressed the other clauses in the group. Clause 29 is a consequence of clause 28, which provides for the piloting power in relation to amending the Northern Ireland canvass by regulations. As I noted earlier, it is proper that the new canvass system is subject to successful piloting. It is also important that the Electoral Commission has an opportunity to consider any canvass pilots and report on their effectiveness and robustness before they are implemented. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and I will have to agree to disagree about the role of piloting. In my view, it is the way that we iteratively and robustly test ways in which a policy can be delivered. When we get to secondary legislation, the specifics of the piloting powers will be set out, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those powers.

[Paul Holmes]

How can a policy be tested robustly if the Government have not outlined the policy position or what they want to get out of a pilot, and we do not know how robustly that is going to be tested, because the details of the pilots are not outlined in primary legislation and would come only through secondary legislation?

[Samantha Dixon]

We could go over and over this point. The Government have set out, in some detail, their objectives for the electoral system. In the case of the Northern Ireland canvass, we have set out the principles, we want to test them, we are taking the powers to test them, and we will come back to Parliament with specifics of those pilots so that they can be scrutinised as profoundly and deeply as Members choose to scrutinise them.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As Chair, I am completely in the hands of the Committee. Amendments and clauses are grouped to reduce the time taken—it is an administrative thing—but if anybody on the Committee wishes a vote to be taken separately, they are perfectly entitled to request that. I can give no better reason than that.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I think it should be entirely out of order for an hon. Member to make a point of order and say that I am time-wasting. I am taking my responsibilities as shadow Minister very seriously by calling for Divisions, as is the democratic right of any Member of this House, in order to allow our constituents to see how we voted on the clauses in this very important Bill. Can you advise me whether saying that someone is time-wasting is in order in this Committee?

[The Chair]

I do not think the hon. Lady meant it in that way. She wanted clarification of the procedure, and I have given it. Everybody on the Committee completely accepts that you are entitled to request separate decisions.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said the words, from a sedentary position, “It is time-wasting.”

[Dr Chowns]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not object to voting on any of these clauses; I am simply pointing out that there is a more time-efficient way to do it.