Local Government Reorganisation

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government are undertaking the biggest reform of local government in a generation, ending the two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils. This agenda is key to this Government’s vision of local councils that deliver good services for residents and are equipped to drive economic growth, but can empower their communities.

As a Government, our No. 1 ambition is growing the economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people. Driving economic growth means acknowledging that cities, towns and villages do not all perform the same roles in the national economy—they specialise in what they are best at. Public service demand also is not the same across the country. Some areas have high levels of homelessness and temporary accommodation, others have a high need for adult social care due to an older population. Local leaders, both in councils and mayoralties, need to be able to focus on the specific needs of their area.

Reorganisation presents a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure our councils match the modern realities of our places, making sure outdated boundaries are not constraining growth, particularly in our towns and cities. In too many places, council boundaries are misaligned with the needs of their local communities and how those communities live their lives. In Ipswich, for example, the boundaries have remained largely unchanged since the middle of the 19th century, even as the population has grown. These outdated and misaligned structures slow down decisions, stifle housing growth, and fragment public service delivery.

This is particularly important for key Government priorities on house building, like our target of building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. The housing needs of local communities are best met by councils who are closely connected to their communities and understand a place’s local identity. This connection is crucial in ensuring that local government can boost economic growth and design public services that respond to local residents.

Reorganisation must also respect local identity, and the distinctive nature of the rural, urban and coastal communities across our country. We want to see councils that are connected to their local residents and communities; councils that mean something to the people they serve.

Decisions

I am pleased to announce today the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. On 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government and neighbouring small unitary authorities were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation.

We invited six areas to put forward proposals by 26 September 2025—East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; Suffolk; and West Sussex.

My Department received 17 proposals in total across the areas. I would like to thank councillors and officers in these areas for their hard work. As the House was informed on 19 November, all the proposals received were taken to consultation, which closed on 11 January 2026. We have now considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter of 5 February 2025, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals. In summary, these criteria are:

whether each proposal achieves for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government;

whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks;

whether the unitary structures prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens;

whether councils in the area have sought to work together to come to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views;

whether new unitary structures support devolution arrangements;

whether new unitary structures enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.

Decisions on each area have been made on a case-by-case basis, on their own merits, respecting the differences of local circumstances and local people’s views. In two areas, I have not yet made a decision, and will make a decision as soon as practicable, so reorganisation can be completed on the planned timeline.

Today, I have written to the leaders of councils setting out decisions and/or next steps for all six areas. I have decided to implement the following proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, in these areas:

Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock: five unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:

West Essex Council (current local government areas of Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford)

North East Essex Council (current local government areas of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring)

Mid Essex Council (current local government areas of Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon)

South West Essex Council (current local government areas of Basildon and Thurrock)

South East Essex Council (current local government areas of Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea).

Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton: five unitary proposal (option 1A) submitted by Eastleigh, Fareham, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth, Rushmoor and Southampton councils, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:

North Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor)

Mid Hampshire Council (current local government areas of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester, less 11 parishes from all four areas)

South East Hampshire Council (current local government areas from East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, three parishes from East Hampshire and one parish from Winchester)

South West Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Eastleigh, four parishes from New Forest, Southampton and three parishes from Test Valley)

Isle of Wight Council will remain as a separate unitary authority.

Norfolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:

West Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and nine parishes from South Norfolk).

Greater Norwich Council (current local government areas of Norwich, 19 parishes from Broadland, and 16 parishes from South Norfolk).

East Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Broadland (less 19 parishes), Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and South Norfolk (less 25 parishes)).

Suffolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:

Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).

Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).

Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, eight parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).

In implementing the above proposals for reorganisation in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight; Norfolk; and Suffolk, I will exercise my power to modify the base proposals received from councils, in order to make the boundary changes that the councils requested.

Further information on the decisions taken in these areas can be found in the letters to council leaders in the areas, which will be published on gov.uk later today. A summary of the responses to the consultations for proposals in these areas will also be published today.

In East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, after carefully considering the four proposals received across the areas, I have not yet made a decision, due to concerns regarding all four of the proposals I received. But I would like to reassure the House that I am still fully committed to delivering reorganisation in these areas with elections in May 2027 and changes coming into effect from April 2028.

I am considering modifications that could address my concerns, including an option for potential modification of the proposals for further consultation. I have set out further details in a letter to council leaders this morning.

I would also like to confirm our commitment to repay in-principle £200 million of Thurrock council’s debt in 2026-27. This is a significant and unprecedented commitment which reflects an assessment of value for money for national and local taxpayers, given the significant unsupported debt at the council linked to historic capital practices. This follows the recent announcement in October 2025 as part of reorganisation in Surrey to repay in-principle £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27.

We have not taken these decisions lightly and they have not been made simply because debt is high at these councils. The decision for Thurrock council reflects an assessment of value for money and acknowledgement that, even after significant local action to reduce debt, the council still holds significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. I would like to thank the council’s current leadership for its grip of the financial situation and to recognise the progress that has been made to reduce debt.

Further detail on this can be found in the letter to Essex council leaders, which will be published on gov.uk.

To prevent failures like those seen in Thurrock and Woking from happening again, we will now bring into operation the statutory powers enacted in 2023—but never used by the previous government—which allow direct intervention where authorities take excessive risks in their borrowing and investment practices. These powers will ensure that essential capital investment in services, housing and growth can continue, but within a much stronger framework of safeguards to protect taxpayers from costly and avoidable failure. We will soon launch a consultation to engage with the sector and stakeholders in developing and implementing these powers.

I am pleased to be able to confirm how the £63 million in transition funding announced in February will be allocated—making this the first Government to provide funding for the reorganisation process. We will provide at least £900,000 for each new unitary authority to help establish effective services and governance arrangements, ensuring funding is provided fairly, consistently, and as quickly as possible. This will mean the Essex invitation area receives £4.5 million for five new unitary councils; the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton invitation area receives £3.6 million for four new unitary councils; the Norfolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils; and the Suffolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils. We will also provide the Surrey invitation area with £1.8 million for two new unitary councils. This approach reflects the differing levels of complexity involved across areas and allows for a small central reserve to be used later for targeted support if needed. Funding will be issued through established, flexible grant mechanisms and my officials will be in touch with councils to confirm next steps.

Next steps

Delivering reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and ongoing collaboration will be vital to ensure that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at their heart.

We remain committed to the timetable we have set out previously, with elections to the new unitary councils taking place in May 2027, ahead of them going live and delivering services in April 2028.

For the other 14 areas going through local government reorganisation, I would like to emphasise that the decisions taken here, and previously in Surrey, do not set any precedent. Decisions will be taken individually, based on the published criteria referred to above, the merits of each proposal we receive, and the local context.

I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the letter and documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.

[HCWS1455]

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections, as set out in our 2024 manifesto. We have already made progress on this, with our strategy for modern and secure elections published in July 2025, setting out the actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our valued democracy.

The Representation of the People Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, will bring in protections against foreign interference, improve political funding transparency, add tougher checks for political donations and close loopholes—increasing public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that vulnerabilities in the UK’s political and electoral systems, particularly with politicians being targeted by foreign states, were exposed in the sentencing for bribery in November 2025 of former MEP Nathan Gill, alongside other recent cases. It is therefore right that we urgently consider whether our firewall is enough.

In December 2025 I commissioned former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. Mr Rycroft has now provided the outcomes of the review to myself and the Security Minister, and today we have laid before the House, using the unopposed return procedure, and published on gov.uk the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics.

The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy. We are taking immediate steps to implement his recommendations for a cap on donations made by overseas electors and for a moratorium on donations made via cryptocurrency, which we will implement through the Representation of the People Bill.

Specifically, we will introduce amendments to the Bill to:

Cap the total value of donations or regulated transactions that an overseas elector can make to, or enter into with any, one or more regulated recipients at £100,000 per calendar year. This cap is a “per elector” cap, meaning that the value of any donations to, or regulated transactions involving, any regulated recipients during the calendar year involving an overseas elector will count towards the cap as it applies to that elector.

Establish a complete moratorium on the making of cryptoasset donations to any regulated recipient, until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way. The moratorium will apply to any donation of any value, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for the controls on donations.

We intend for these measures to apply to all regulated recipients of political donations, and to apply to all elections in the UK. This means that it is intended that the measures will apply to:

Any donation to a registered political party regulated under part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA);

Any controlled donation to a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office—i.e. an MP; a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly; a police and crime commissioner; a member of a local authority or the Greater London Assembly; the Mayor of London or an elected mayor—regulated under schedule 7 to PPERA;

Any regulated transaction involving a registered political party, a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office regulated under part 4A of or schedule 7A to PPERA;

Any relevant donation to a recognised third party regulated under schedule 11 to PPERA;

Any relevant donation to a candidate at any election in the UK—i.e. a candidate at a UK parliamentary election, a Scottish parliamentary election, a Senedd election, a Northern Ireland Assembly election, a local government election in England, Wales and Scotland, a local election in Northern Ireland, a Greater London Assembly election or an election of the Mayor of London, or an election of a police and crime commissioner in England and Wales—regulated under schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 or equivalent provision under secondary legislation;

Any relevant donation to a permitted participant to a referendum to which part 7 of PPERA or the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 applies;

Any relevant donation to an accredited campaigner at a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates—rather than parties—are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments, to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will also speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system across the UK.

Critically, the amendments to the Representation of the People Bill will make it clear that, when the legislation comes into force, both of these changes will be applied retrospectively from today. The measures will therefore apply in respect of donations received from today and regulated transactions entered into from today—and for the purpose of the cap on donations from regulated transactions involving overseas electors only such donations or regulated transactions are to be taken into account when determining whether the cap has been reached in respect of any overseas elector.

Political parties and other regulated recipients will need to consider carefully any donations or regulated transactions to which these measures will apply from today until the provisions in the Bill that relate to these measures come into force. A regulated recipient should refuse any donation—or choose not to enter into a regulated transaction—where the donation or regulated transaction would be considered impermissible as a result of these two measures once enacted.

Once the provisions of the Bill for these two measures come into force, a regulated recipient will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations that they may have received and inadvertently accepted in the interim, or to pay back any money owed under transactions inadvertently entered into or rendered void, after which enforcement action can be taken.

The Government support the wider conclusions drawn by Philip Rycroft on the risks in our system and will reflect swiftly on how best to take these forward, given their more technical nature. We will respond, formally and in full, in advance of Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill.

[HCWS1459]

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

12.43 pm

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

I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.

The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.

We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.

In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.

British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:

“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”

Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people

“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”

none the less to

“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”

I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.

Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.

The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.

The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that

“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”

I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.

In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.

The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.

I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does.

There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report—[Interruption.] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately.

Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process.

My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented.

It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help.

The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House?

From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding?

Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced?

Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?

[Steve Reed]

May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.

We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.

None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work? I also thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its work on cryptocurrency?

We have to be honest and say that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy. I am proud to stand here as someone who was supported by two trade unions and local members in the funding of my campaign. We cannot say in one breath that we want to defend this country from foreign threats and then allow fundamentally opaque payment methods into our democracy. That is not on. It is therefore right that the Government put in place this moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge, as well as the cap on donations by overseas electors following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.

As is stated in the Rycroft review, one problem is the fact that no less than five Departments cover the responsibility for protecting our democracy. If we want to get this right, we need to continue with leadership at the heart of Government, so will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 and allocate a permanent secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and co-ordinating the response to the threats at the heart of Government?

Will the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill as a result of the recommendations are tabled before Commons Report stage, so that Parliament can have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Reed]

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

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Rycroft review and I very much enjoyed speaking to Philip Rycroft during the process. Beyond crypto and other financial donations, he says we need to tackle deepfakes, bots and disinformation; create a political ad library; and put in place greater investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission and an incident protocol should there be a major election incident. My amendments deal with all those points. Will the Secretary of State undertake to urgently meet me to see how we can take my currently named amendments and make them Government amendments at the Bill’s next stage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.

I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).

If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank Sir Philip Rycroft for his important work. In his review, he notes:

“The online environment has created a cheap and relatively simple means of getting anonymised content in front of ordinary people in a way that seeks to undermine their trust in the political process.”

He notes that this activity is “strategic, long-term and patient”, and that

“dissonance is its own reward.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with those findings? What can we do to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media and in online spaces?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to maintain confidence and trust of the British electorate in the integrity of our elections and election processes. This legislation, and the amendments we will table as a result of the Rycroft review, are intended to achieve precisely that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point. The Government are keeping precisely that concern under very close review so that we stand ready to make changes as and when they are required. The Security Minister is on the Front Bench with me today because he would lead much of that work.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the Rycroft review. He says that he will be responding to the many wide-ranging recommendations that the review contains, but can I press him further on what actions the Government are taking to give the Electoral Commission not only resources but the powers needed to both deter and punish breaches of political financial rules?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it is a very important one. We will respond in detail to the recommendations and bring forward any new powers or resources that the Electoral Commission requires. We will ensure that it can carry out any new responsibilities that we place on them.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Can I put on record my thanks to Sir Philip Rycroft for his public service? The Secretary of State referenced devolved Administrations. The Scottish Parliament is going into the pre-election period this afternoon, so how will this work in terms of the elections? How will this legislation impact the extraordinary number of political donors who happen to find themselves as Members of the House of Lords, should they be seen to have broken any rules here?

[Steve Reed]

I hope to speak with the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government today. There will, of course, be engagement between officials during the pre-election period. Any legislative change would come after the elections in Scotland and in Wales.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I very much welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. It is long overdue when we think about how much money has been flooding in from Russia and elsewhere. There are questions about association, and certain individuals who have been donating significant amounts of money while living for 21 years not here but in Thailand. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, made many recommendations in our political finance report, which we published last week. I have tabled 11 amendments, which I hope the Secretary of State will very much view as constructive.

I welcome the connection tests that the Secretary of State has mentioned to do with the individual and on a corporate level, and the moratorium on cryptocurrencies is extremely welcome. California banned them back in 2018, so it just goes to show how much could have been done in recent years. The capacity of the enforcement agencies is a real concern. The higher penalties will be very much welcomed by them, I am sure, but I reiterate that there needs to be greater capacity and expertise across the Electoral Commission and the enforcement agencies.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I recognise his concerns. I have addressed them in answer to previous questions, and I will not repeat those responses.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?

[Steve Reed]

Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I welcome the Rycroft review and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s commitment to take action on crypto donations and to cap foreign donations from overseas donors. I want to draw his attention to the comment in the report that the debate on social media

“seeks to exacerbate division and increase polarisation with a view to simply destroying the capacity of the UK to function as a well-governed state.”

This is chilling. Alongside the proposals that he has spoken about, we need action to tackle deepfakes and disinformation, which are making it more and more dangerous for electoral candidates to operate in our democracy. Will he take action to empower our regulators, including Ofcom and the Electoral Commission, to take action rapidly, without delay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Many people who care deeply about democracy have raised similar concerns. The review makes proposals on deepfakes and transparency about the origins of any content that appears online, which is needed. We will provide a detailed response to the recommendations, at which point she and other Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate and scrutiny them as we work through the legislation.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the action he is taking on cryptocurrency, but can I urge him to go further on corporate donations? A report this week by CenTax revealed that as many as one in four donations from corporate entities are essentially opaque. It put this down to the reliance on persons with significant control rules, and it made a series of recommendations. Will he commit to looking at the recommendations in that report and ensuring that we tighten up the system so that people cannot simply circumvent the rules by donating via British companies?

[Steve Reed]

The Bill and the Rycroft review already propose actions on that. I recognise the concerns. We need to act on shell companies, for instance, which can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that the money could be coming from hostile states seeking to weaken and undermine our country by undermining our democracy. We will not tolerate that.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

In his excellent report, Sir Philip Rycroft specifically references the amplification of divisive content on social media. Yesterday my Committee heard from TikTok, Meta and X how in each case the design of their algorithm is determined by a foreign billionaire with a political agenda. Certainly when it comes to Mr Musk, that agenda does not reflect our democratic values—he has called for civil war in the UK. Unlike traditional press, social media algorithms are hidden, inaccessible and use personal data to target content, as Rycroft observes. Will the Secretary of State consider whether political bias in algorithms constitutes a donation in kind, and will he work with colleagues to address the algorithmic, advertising research and transparency failures that our Committee gave detailed proposals about in our report last July?

[Steve Reed]

I listened carefully, and with great interest, to part of the Select Committee’s proceedings yesterday. We are grateful for the contribution that my hon. Friend and her Committee are making to the debate. This legislation is not intended to target any one individual or state; it is about putting in place safeguards against growing threats, wherever they may arise.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I think the Government are very wise to try to close the potential loophole that somebody might make a giant donation between today and the conclusion of the legislative process, but I can think of at least one other rather glaring loophole, which hopefully the Secretary of State has also considered. If somebody is an elector living abroad, he will be limited to £100,000 per donation, but what about other members of his close family to whom he could channel indefinite numbers of packages of £100,000 apiece? What is to stop them from making similar donations? Has the Secretary of State considered how the limit will work in practice?

[Steve Reed]

Any attempt to bypass existing laws or the provisions that I have announced today would themselves be illegal. We would seek to identify the ultimate source and, if any behaviours of that kind had been carried out, there would be necessary enforcement action to follow.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures announced today to tackle foreign interference in our elections. Will the Secretary of State go a step further and support my proposal to break the link between wealthy donors and the parties they help to elect by banning their firms from subsequently holding Government contracts?

[Steve Reed]

The report is focused on stopping money coming in from hostile states or other hostile individuals who seek to undermine our democracy. That is the extent of the measures that I am announcing today.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Constituents like Andrew from Crewkerne have told me how worried they are about funding from the United States for right-wing UK think-tanks and political parties. Recommendations 4 and 16 of the review would strengthen transparency and reporting around donations to think-tanks and lobbying groups, which can advance foreign influence. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents whether the Government will implement those recommendations, and when that will be?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member and his constituents for their interest in this important matter. Philip Rycroft makes 17 detailed recommendations in his review. We will respond to all of them line by line, and at that point the hon. Member and his constituents will have our clear view.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making this important statement. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I am concerned about the ability of shell companies to make political donations. Clearly that is not transparent, and that is rightly recognised in the Rycroft review. What steps will the Government take to close that loophole? Crucially, what will the Government do to strengthen the monitoring of donations?

[Steve Reed]

That is an important point, because the ability of shell companies to exist as funnels for dark, dirty money entering and polluting UK politics is real. That is why we are taking the recommendations seriously, and we will come forward with amendments to the legislation intended to close those doors so that we can keep British elections free for British people.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?

[Steve Reed]

Philip Rycroft has recognised the concern and proposed what I think is a proportionate approach to dealing with it. I have accepted the figure of a £100,000 cap, which I think most reasonably minded people would agree is a very generous level of funding, for donations from British nationals who are living and paying their taxes overseas.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments. The Rycroft report has come at a really important time. As a member of the Bill Committee, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that all the recommendations are brought through, because they are incredibly important. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about the importance of a report relating to US interference in our democracy. What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference more generally before the Representation of the People Bill passes through the House?

[Steve Reed]

The US, of course, is our closest ally. The provisions that we are making in this legislation do not target any one country, or indeed any one individual; they are intended to be a proportionate response to a growing threat, wherever that threat may arise.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I strongly welcome the report and the Government’s speedy and decisive response to it. Evidence from Germany and from Moldova shows how online attempts at foreign interference can combine with real-life attempts at foreign interference in the run-up to elections. First, was I right in hearing that the Government will look at a transparent protocol for dealing with information emergencies related to foreign actors in the run-up to elections? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that in countries where crypto interests have unfairly influenced elections, donations have often been given in domestic currency? Will he look at that broader context?

[Steve Reed]

There are recommendations covering precisely the points that my right hon. Friend raised. I have accepted the report, in general terms, in full. We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, which I hope will address her concerns.

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

I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens?

On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Lady for her and her party’s support for the review. I also thank her for her work on the Bill Committee. She is quite right; we need to make sure that when the amendments come forward, the Bill Committee has sufficient time—and, indeed, that the House has sufficient time—to go through them in detail. I and the Government will respond to each of the 17 recommendations in detail, and I think that that will be the most appropriate time to respond to the question she has raised.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed.

May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his personal engagement on this issue and for the work of the APPG that he chairs. It has made some significant contributions and we are grateful for that. We will, of course, ensure that the Electoral Commission has the resources it requires to enforce changes as we bring them forward. On his final point, the defending democracy taskforce exists to make sure that there is proper alignment across all the necessary regulators to ensure that we are keeping our democracy in this country free and safe.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to the rights of British overseas electors and the cap on donations as a proportionate response, yet their right to cast their vote is constantly stymied by late arrivals of the post. While the Secretary of State is considering amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, will he meet me to consider my amendments that would address that issue and seek to secure the voting rights of overseas citizens?

[Steve Reed]

I am aware of that important concern. I am happy to make sure that he gets an appropriate meeting to discuss it.

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

I welcome the report; it is game changing. I agree with the Secretary of State’s logic that leaving a window open for dodgy money to flood into this country would have been totally irresponsible, so I welcome the swift action. My specific question is about recommendation 2 on company donations. We have learned from the Premier League’s attempt to enforce financial fair play that, unfortunately, revenue can be manipulated very easily—for example, sponsorship can allow clubs to buy players that they otherwise would not be able to afford. I welcome Rycroft’s recommendation that we switch to profit to ensure that only genuine companies that make a profit in this country can give donations. As the Government respond in full to the report, will the Secretary of State take a close look at that recommendation?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right; Philip Rycroft was very clear in his reasoning on that point. The objective is to prevent shell companies from being set up to funnel dark money into British politics. It is not to prevent British companies that are just going through a difficult year or two from making donations themselves.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I welcome the review, the Minister’s response and the general thrust of it. I am glad to see the list of people who responded at the back of the review. We responded on behalf of the Unionist community, and it is a good job that we did as no others seem to have done so.

On political donations in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware of Sinn Féin being able to funnel money from the United States into the Republic and then into Northern Ireland. That is an issue that we raised and it is itemised on page 25. It is a concern that many people have. Sinn Féin already gets millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in representative money for not coming here, and in addition to that, it is now getting several millions from the USA via Dublin and into Northern Ireland.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s engagement with the review. I hear his concerns. It is important that we continue to engage so that those concerns can be heard and, where appropriate, addressed.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his prompt action in banning cryptoasset donations and capping foreign donations. The Rycroft review also recommends that foreign-funded adverts be banned and that all online adverts should have imprints to show who has paid for them. Will the Secretary of State explain when and how the Government will take those recommendations forward?

[Steve Reed]

Philip Rycroft makes some really important points on that, which of course other Members across the House have made previously. As I said earlier, we will respond in detail to all the recommendations, including those covering the points that my hon. Friend has just raised.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and the Secretary of State for the announcement today. I am particularly happy that we have this idea about it being retrospective and applying the measures from today because we do not know when the Bill will come through. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider, both for crypto and for foreign donations, extending the period of retrospectivity back to the previous general election?

[Steve Reed]

I am not so sure there is much precedent for that level of retrospectivity.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank Philip Rycroft for meeting me in my position as chair of the fair elections APPG and for including some of my points and evidence in this excellent review. I also thank the Secretary of State for including the donations cap—an issue that I raised with the Minister for Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), when we met.

My question relates to page 45 of the review, which talks about international best practice, and the point I raised with Philip Rycroft about VIGINUM in France, which monitors foreign online interference. That is the most pressing issue in UK politics today. It is about not just identifying it and publishing it, but attributing and exposing it, and in some cases even getting it removed. Are we considering the same modalities, capabilities and powers when implementing that recommendation in the UK?

[Steve Reed]

We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one that my hon. Friend references. However, he is absolutely right: we can and should learn from best practice in other democracies to make our democracy as robust and safe as it can be.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I, too, welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s work and the Secretary of State’s announcement today. I strongly support the idea of applying the donations cap and the moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to the devolved elections. Will the Secretary of State just clarify, to reassure me, that for those changes to take effect for the upcoming elections, we will not have to have a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures before the elections because, as others have mentioned, there is very little time for that to happen?

[Steve Reed]

No; to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the provisions I have announced today apply to the entire United Kingdom, with immediate effect.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I strongly welcome the review and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning it. I have heard what he has said about considering the recommendations in detail. I draw his attention to paragraph 75, which states:

“there are no reporting requirements for campaign spending outside regulated periods for either non-party campaigners or candidates. This means that there is no transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending, outside of regulated periods.”

We go out of the regulated period again in six weeks’ time. Will the Secretary of State consider the urgency of that particular recommendation for dealing with the regulated period? More broadly, does he agree that it is our democratic duty to take the report seriously, and that political parties that do not take the report, and transparency and democracy, seriously have no role in this Parliament and no decency in representing their constituents?

[Steve Reed]

There are clear recommendations about non-party campaigns and candidates, and we will be making our response to those recommendations in due course. The only recommendations I am bringing into force immediately are those that I referred to in my statement.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I welcome the recommendations of the Rycroft report, particularly the cap on donations from overseas voters, but we all know that our domestic politics is still prey to big money influencing all the parties in this House, which warps our politics and moves it away from public discourse in favour of the interests of the wealthy. In fact, the last election saw one of the highest ever levels of spending in a general election, at close to £70 million. That is extremely unfair for the smaller parties and independents, so can I ask the Minister how we can promote fairer representation and a move away from domestic big-money politics?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The purpose of the review, and therefore of my statement, is to address growing concerns about foreign influence on our elections, particularly the attempts by hostile states to get control of our elections and influence them in ways that will favour them rather than the British people.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Rycroft report, especially the focus it puts on the threat of social media upturning our democracy. It was astonishing in the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee yesterday that the representative from X repeatedly stated that X was not politically biased and appeared to decouple himself from Elon Musk and the platform itself. Elon Musk has incited hatred in this country and backed very right-wing candidates and parties on his platform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recommendations on foreign financial influence extend to any Member of this House receiving any income from X or any other social media platform?

[Steve Reed]

The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

A former high-ranking member of Reform UK was convicted and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives, while some Members across the House have had direct foreign interference in their work in Parliament. Given that the Rycroft report highlights the fact that foreign interference in our politics is real and persistent, what additional steps can be taken to strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in political parties?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the very high profile case of Nathan Gill, who was accepting bribes on behalf of Russia, a hostile foreign state, and effectively kowtowing to it rather than responding to the wishes of the British public. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we are bringing forward the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill, and we will be bringing forward further amendments based on Philip Rycroft’s review that is before the House today.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and for meeting me to discuss his report. I also thank the Government for the quick action that they are taking. On cryptocurrencies, what further action will the Government be taking to ensure that the influence does not move from politics into lobbying or, even worse, into think-tank organisations?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are recommendations in the review about precisely that, and we will come forward with our detailed response. I have accepted the review in general terms, but we will bring forward detailed responses to the individual recommendations and then amendments to the legislation so that we can put in place the necessary protections to ensure that it is the British people who take the decisions about who governs them, not people sitting in the Kremlin or in seats of government in other countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement and for the clear direction from the Government. Some four or five weeks ago, I asked him a question about Sinn Féin moneys. At that time, he said that he would come back to me, but he did not—this is not a criticism, by the way—and I now understand that the reason he did not was that this statement was coming today.

In the light of the statement, can I ask for some clarification? Accountability and transparency are tenets that have to go hand in hand with elections, and those ideals must become realities. Given that Sinn Féin has historically received millions in US-placed donations and maintains a unique cross-border structure, will the Minister ensure that the Rycroft review specifically examines the adequacy of safeguards against political funding originating from the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, to ensure a level playing field for all parties within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?

[Steve Reed]

I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that, in addition to already needing to be on the electoral register, a donor would need to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, section 10 required a statutory instrument to activate it, but no such statutory instrument was ever laid before this House. Will the Secretary of State look at belatedly activating this measure to ensure that only those that live and pay tax in the UK can influence our democracy with their money?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.

[Steve Reed]

We will lay the details before the House so that Members on both sides have access to the relevant information. It was important that the provisions in these two circumstances were brought forward to today, because of the risk of a window for evasion had we not done that. That retrospective change will be subject to the legislation going through Parliament successfully.

Points of Order

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—

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

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.

Local Government: Best Value

Steve Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I have previously updated the House on this Government doing what it takes to fix the foundations of local government. That includes taking prompt and direct action when councils are failing their best value duty. In that context, today I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in Tower Hamlets.

On 19 January, I informed the House that, having carefully considered the evidence, I was concerned that a year into the statutory intervention, the council was not making sufficient progress and had not understood the severity of its situation or moved beyond planning for improvement into action and impact. I considered that the council was not yet complying with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture and partnerships, and that the evidence amounted to new failure to comply with the duty in relation to its use of resources. I therefore proposed changes to the current intervention package to accelerate and strengthen the required improvement work, and invited the council and other interested parties to provide representations on the proposals by 2 February.

I received five responses. I also received the envoys’ second report, which I am publishing today. The envoys recognise the progress the council has made in some areas, including engaging more effectively with its partners, the delivery of a staff survey and the development of a more mature continuous improvement plan. They conclude, however, that

“the overall pace of change and the grip of the officer and member leadership to drive improvement is insufficient.”

They describe the council’s leadership as “unnecessarily defensive”, noting that their energy is centered on

“managing the message and writing a plan, rather than on deeper ownership of the council’s issues and driving forward key deliverables".

The envoys welcome the proposed package and believe that it will support a necessary shift in the approach of the council’s leadership.

I have carefully considered the representations, the envoys’ second report and other relevant material. I am satisfied that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, which includes additional failure in relation to its use of resources. I am also satisfied that the council is not yet making sufficient progress or demonstrating the required level of leadership grip under the existing model of intervention. I have therefore concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise intervention powers under the Local Government Act 1999 as I have proposed, to accelerate and strengthen the improvement work, with some minor amendments, in order to:

Streamline the governance of the intervention,

Increase the transparency and scrutiny of the council’s reporting against its improvement journey, and

Clarify the scope and intended effect of the powers being issued to the envoys.

I have today issued the council with revised directions under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act which in summary require the council to

Continue to implement its continuous improvement plan in a timely manner, including action to continue to address the statutory recommendations and significant weaknesses identified by the council’s external auditor

Continue to achieve improvements in scrutiny, recruitment, transparency, procurement, contract management, internal investigations, officer structure and the scheme of delegation

Co-operate with the envoys to adequately resource and deliver the deep dive project into alleged misconduct at the council

Disband its transformation and assurance board and establish an envoy-led improvement board to oversee its delivery against the ministerial directions

Take appropriate action to ensure compliance with its best value duty in relation to leadership, governance, culture, partnerships and community engagement, continuous improvement and use of resources.

To safeguard the improvement process, the envoys will be able to exercise the following functions of the council, which are to be treated by the envoys as held in reserve. In summary, these functions are associated with the

Governance, scrutiny and transparency of decision making

Strategic financial management, financial governance and scrutiny of financial decision making

Operating model and redesign of local services, and

Recruitment, appointment, structure, performance management and dismissal of senior and statutory officers.

To reflect the need for additional finance expertise and capacity in the envoy team, I will appoint an additional assistant envoy with finance expertise in due course.

For the envoy model to be successful, the council and its leadership need to grip and drive its own improvement at pace, supported, challenged and overseen by the envoys. I want to be clear in my expectation that the council’s political and officer leadership now demonstrate true acceptance and ownership of the issues and embed improvement at every level of the organisation, with clear evidence of impact and progress. I expect the envoys to see a clear change in the current behaviours of the council’s leadership, and I know they will hold them accountable if change is not forthcoming.

Additionally, I would like to highlight to all members of the council that their individual and collective contributions to the council’s improvement journey are crucial to its success. It is disappointing that some members have demonstrated a lack of commitment to improvement thus far and it is my expectation that members from all parties can put aside their personal and political differences to prioritise constructive scrutiny and debate. It is time for all members to put the residents of Tower Hamlets first and contribute wholeheartedly to the council’s improvement journey.

As we approach local and mayoral elections this May, it is of upmost importance that all interested parties work closely together to deliver safe and secure local elections. I would also like to remind the council of the importance of adhering to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity, particularly its principles of objectivity and even-handedness, especially in times of heightened sensitivity.

The revised directions take effect from today. The envoys will provide their next report on progress in the summer, with further reports as agreed with them. As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the envoys and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The envoys’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise being brought in and the scale of the challenge.

I will review the directions and the envoys’ roles at the appropriate time, to ensure Tower Hamlets has the right support to secure its recovery and to protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions. As set out in my 19 January statement, I remain committed to working in partnership with the London borough of Tower Hamlets to provide whatever support is needed to ensure its compliance with the best value duty.

[HCWS1410]

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I start by paying tribute to the bereaved family members of those who died at Grenfell Tower, as well as the survivors and members of the local community. Nothing we can say in this Chamber can take away what they have been through. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which took the lives of 72 people, was a terrible moment in our country’s history. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it has had lasting consequences for bereaved families, for those who survived and for the local community and far beyond. We must ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. There is still much to do on justice, on reform and on making homes safe, but today’s Bill is about one clear part of our responsibility: how we remember Grenfell and how we keep our promise over time.

This is a simple Bill with a simple purpose: to ensure that the Grenfell Tower memorial is properly supported today and for the long term. It is for the bereaved, survivors and the community to take their decisions on what the memorial will look like. The Bill is here to fund that important work. Grenfell must not be about party politics. The previous Government promised to support bereaved families and survivors to create a fitting and lasting memorial. This Government are keeping that promise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the sombre and appropriate way he proposes the Bill. Although the memorial is important and should be tasteful and poignant, the best memorial is the lessons learned so that no other family has to suffer as these victims’ families have suffered, and the lives that will be saved by the changes that are implemented for safety. That is the real memorial those people wish to have.

[Steve Reed]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He describes it absolutely correctly. That is why it will be the local community, survivors, the bereaved and the next of kin who will take decisions about what the memorial will look like.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is correct in everything he has said so far about the memorial. Is he willing to meet me? He has spoken about safety, and many of my residents are concerned about their safety with unsafe cladding. They are also worried about the cost of that. Will he or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss that issue further?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the legacy of Grenfell must be that people are kept safe in their own homes. I would be happy to ensure that she has an appropriate meeting with an appropriate Minister, whether that is me or a colleague.

The points that Members have raised is why the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission was set up in 2019. It is community-led and there to shape a shared vision of the future of the site. After years of engagement, the commission published its report “Remembering Grenfell” in November 2023. It set out clear recommendations for: a permanent memorial at the site of Grenfell Tower; a private site where parts of the tower where people died and where their remains were not identifiable can be laid to rest with respect; and a physical and digital archive alongside a permanent exhibition, so that the story of Grenfell is preserved as a lesson for the future.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this piece of legislation. Can he confirm that the Bill is not only about capital expenditure, but long-term maintenance, to ensure that this is a lasting legacy for the families of Grenfell?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This legislation has to be about the long term; that has to be the best way we can pay tribute to those who died and their relatives from that very dark night.

The work of the memorial commission will be guided by those most directly affected. We know that views about the future of the site are deeply personal and not always shared by everyone. The Government have welcomed the commission’s recommendations and will help to carry them out. Design work led by the community is now under way, with a design team appointed after a selection process that involved bereaved families, survivors and the wider local community. The aim is to start construction of the memorial from mid-2027.

This is a very focused Bill. It gives the Government the statutory authority needed to spend public money on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It allows for land to be bought where needed and for works to be carried out on that land. The scope of the Bill is deliberately narrow. It does not set the design of the memorial. It does not determine planning decisions. It does not set governance or ownership arrangements. It makes sure that spending connected to the memorial is carried out properly, in line with the rules for Government spending and with Parliament’s agreement.

The community will continue to work on the design while Parliament considers this Bill so that work stays on course towards a mid-2027 start to construction. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and those whose lives were forever changed by that tragedy. It will be a place where people can remember, reflect and pay their respects. It does not take away from other work that still needs to be completed. The community has waited far too long for justice to be served. Those responsible must be held to account, and I fully support the Metropolitan police in what is one of the largest and most complex investigations it has ever carried out. We must also reform the system so that the voices of residents cannot be ignored and safety risks can never again simply be brushed aside.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

The way in which the Secretary of State has spoken so far reflects the way we all felt post-Grenfell. We must ensure that the communities feel they have somewhere to go, somewhere to grieve. Does the Secretary of State agree that the work relating to who was responsible for the tragedy needs to continue, alongside the work on the memorial?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and of course the police investigation continues. The families have had a long wait for justice, but justice must and will come.

This requires a new culture of transparency and accountability, which the Government remain fully committed to building. I will continue to act on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations to ensure that they lead to real and lasting change across the country. No one should ever go to bed unsure about whether their home is safe, and speeding up remediation remains one of our highest priorities. We are working with developers, freeholders and local authorities to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible, and we are now monitoring thousands of buildings to ensure that progress is being made.

This short but important Bill is about how we remember what we learn and what we do as a result. It ensures that national remembrance is properly supported and protected with Parliament’s consent, while also supporting the central role of bereaved families, survivors and the community. It helps to ensure that Grenfell is never forgotten, and that the lessons of that tragic night will make homes safer and the future fairer for everyone. I commend it to the House.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the Social Cohesion Action Plan statement on 9 March 2026.

[Steve Reed]

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 80.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):

[Steve Reed]

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 areas and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 91.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is up to £4 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition.

Representation of the People Bill

The following extract is from Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill on 2 March 2026.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s action plan for social cohesion entitled, “Protecting What Matters”.

Britain has faced global crises at many moments in our history; we got through them by staying strong and united. Today we navigate new threats to our communities and families. We must stand together once again against those who seek to divide and weaken us. They want to sow division in our streets, our neighbourhoods, our homes and our minds. They feed off deliberate misinformation, hatred and extremism, carried across social media by algorithms, and funded by hostile states and rogue billionaires determined to pull our communities apart.

Online echo chambers, hatred for those with a different point of view and an unwillingness to seek compromise have led to a politics that is more aggressive, polarised and toxic than we have seen before—certainly in our lifetimes. As a nation, we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together—a multi-ethnic democracy where neighbours look out for each other—but the foundations on which this country was built have been rocked by the rapid change all around us. Economic shocks and austerity halted the once steady improvement in our living standards. Rapid technological change has transformed how we work and live our lives. Intergenerational unfairness, regional inequality, an ageing population, the Tories’ open borders experiment and the disruption caused by their asylum-seeker hotels policy—all of that—has left communities more fearful of the future and more susceptible to siren voices wrongly putting the blame on minority groups.

Today, through the publication of “Protecting What Matters”, which we laid as a Command Paper in both Houses this afternoon, we have set out our steps towards a more confident, cohesive and united kingdom. Patriotism means bringing our country together, never pulling it apart. It is not patriotic to target someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. We will resist those who peddle that kind of hatred and division. We choose to celebrate our country and all it stands for. We choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times. We choose to take on those who seek to divide us. That is patriotism.

Our action plan aims to build confident communities that have hope in the future. There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards. People remember high streets from years gone by that were vibrant, buzzy, great places to socialise with friends and family. There is a real sense of anger, as well as of loss, that so many have been left boarded up and run down, covered in graffiti and full of dumped rubbish—bleak symbols of the wasted Tory years.

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent. Fair funding for councils means that funding now follows deprivation for the first time in over a decade. We are offering grassroots organisations £5 million through the common ground fund to tackle division in communities.

We will focus, too, on protecting young people from those who want to warp their minds with hatred and introduce more effective regulation of home education, with the first ever register of children not in school, stronger oversight where children may be at risk and the piloting of a new approach where new safety checks are carried out before a child can be taken out of mainstream schooling.

It is important that children grow up understanding the diversity of our nation, so we are investing £500,000 to link schools serving different communities in order to ensure that they know and understand each other better. We will establish a social cohesion measurement framework so that we can identify risks early and act quickly. We will set expectations on integration for new arrivals and the communities who will receive them, with a focus on learning English so that people have a shared language, can participate in the local community and have respect for British values, our democracy and our way of life. We will end the Tory asylum hotels policy and shape an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and that works better for all communities.

We will not allow hatred to distort the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. Right now, Muslim communities are facing shocking levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels and now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes—way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population. Mosques, schools and businesses have been attacked. Women have been harassed. Families are living in fear.

We have a duty to act, but we cannot tackle a problem if we cannot describe it, so today we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so that we can take action to stop it. The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech—about religion in general or any religion in particular—and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected.

I thank the members of the independent working group chaired by Dominic Grieve, who have provided advice to me on this matter. They have been targets for abuse because they carried out that work. That is utterly unacceptable. I am grateful for their patience and their wisdom. We will now work with groups across society to consider how the definition can be used most effectively and what comes next in disseminating it. We have deposited a copy of the definition in the Library of each House.

We also remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have witnessed murderous antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad. Sickeningly, those have led to spikes in antisemitic abuse. Since coming to power, the Government have taken decisive steps to combat antisemitism, with record funding for security at synagogues and schools, millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and new laws to stop abusive protests outside places of worship.

Today we are going even further to tackle antisemitism in schools and colleges and in the healthcare system and, crucially, clamping down hard on the extremism that so often targets Jews first of all. Work is under way across Government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life. We also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in the workplace. We are building on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, rolling out training across the civil service and working with major employers such as the NHS. This will include training to prevent and respond to religious hatred across the entire workforce.

Confronting extremism in all its forms requires more resilient communities. We will implement the anti-extremism policies that the previous Government announced but never brought into force, embedding the 2024 extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report and improving our ability to monitor and stop extremist influence online and offline. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations. We will also strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist abuse and ban visas for extremists and hate preachers.

Our universities should always be beacons of free speech, where students feel safe to learn, to disagree and to explore how they see the world, but in recent years this has been undermined and we will not tolerate that. We are introducing new measures to tackle the rise of extremism on our college and university campuses, particularly since the 7 October attacks, which include strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, improving oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and taking more robust enforcement action where it is needed.

We will also protect people from hate content online. The Government will not stand by as rogue platforms push divisive and aggressive hatred on social media. We are looking at how we can make platforms give their users more control over the algorithms that determine what they see, and we will make full use of the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023.

We have all grown up in a United Kingdom that is, by global standards, remarkably cohesive. That cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice. In place of division, we choose unity, and we know that the people of Britain have made the same choice. The division and hate spewed by a small minority will never reflect our country.

The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they would support their country’s team in the world cup, and where neighbours hold street parties and set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during covid. This is a Britain to be proud of, and I commend this plan to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, I had no prior notice that he would overrun the 10 minutes that he was allocated for his statement by more than two minutes. He has taken 12 minutes, so the shadow Front Bencher will get their time extended to six minutes. I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although the Government leaked it on Friday and his Department briefed it to the press yesterday. Parliament should not learn the details of Government policy through newspaper reports. This House deserves transparency.

There are some measures in this strategy that we welcome. Efforts to tackle extremism in charities and universities are important and necessary, and we welcome them, but the strategy lacks ambition and action to deliver tangible change. The Secretary of State spoke for two minutes over his allocated time, which is ironic because there is absolutely nothing new in the measures that the Government are announcing this evening.

The strategy claims that the Government intend to embed the anti-extremism principles adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 2024, but if that is the case, why have this Government reversed the position on naming extremist organisations? We now have the ridiculous situation where the Government claim they have a policy of non-engagement with extremists but refuse to say who that policy applies to. Last month, we saw this confusion laid bare when the Home Office was asked whether it engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain. Two Ministers gave contradictory answers. When asked whether the MCB had given written evidence to the Macdonald review into hate crime, the Minister for Policing and Crime, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated:

“The Government’s policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has not changed.”

However, just two days later, when asked whether the Muslim Council of Britain was on the list of organisations subject to that policy, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), replied:

“The Home Office does not comment on specific groups.”

So which is it?

This lack of transparency also applies to the review itself. Will the Minister now publish the full report provided to him by the working group? Will he publish a list of every external organisation that the working group met, and every organisation his Department has subsequently consulted on that report? Will he confirm whether organisations deemed extremist or subject to the Government’s policy of non-engagement were permitted to submit evidence? So far, this review appears to have been conducted largely in secret. The Government even had to be dragged kicking and screaming into publishing an email address so that evidence could be submitted.

The proposed definition still raises serious questions. Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that any definition should include clear examples of free speech that are not considered anti-Muslim hatred. He says it is important that people can still openly discuss difficult but significant topics such as migration and Islamism. The definition risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism and it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law.

The strategy also claims that the Government want to promote the English language, but they will not say whether they support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages. We should be investing in English language training, not endless translation. Translation undermines integration, it wastes taxpayers’ money and it ultimately harms equality. There is no legal duty on councils to translate documents into foreign languages, yet too often officials gold-plate the Equality Act 2010 and do so anyway.

Meanwhile, around 1 million adults in this country cannot speak English properly. This fundamentally limits their life chances and perpetuates separate communities. If the Government truly believed in equality, they would not turn a blind eye to practices such as family voting, where husbands effectively take the votes off their wives. Neither would they tolerate the misogyny and segregation that occur when men prevent women from learning English—[Interruption.] Labour Members might want to listen to this, because I am about to talk about antisemitism and I know that they have had a problem with that.

On the question of antisemitism, will the Government challenge anti-Israel boycotts and divestment campaigns in local government, as we have seen recently in Bristol, advocated by a party in this House? Such campaigns fuel hostility towards Jewish people and contribute to the rise in antisemitism. Local procurement boycotts of Israel are supposed to be unlawful, yet Ministers do nothing to enforce the law. They will not even compile a list of the councils pursuing such boycotts.

Added to these fears, separatism is on the rise in our country, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly set out in her speech last week. She said that

“for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain…Britain is a multiracial country, we must not be a multicultural one.”

[Interruption.] That was in the Secretary of State’s statement, by the way. We must reject the absurd idea that culture is something imported from somewhere else. For integration to work, people must know into what they are integrating. That means a culture that is confident, that is strong and that believes in itself. That is what this Government still seem unable to understand and unwilling to defend.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think—for his comments. The reason this is the first social cohesion strategy that any Government have published for many years is that the Conservatives did not bother when they were in government. No, there has not been proactive engagement with the MCB in the work carried out by the Government or the taskforce. The previous Government did not publish a social cohesion strategy, but they did sow division in our communities. Their asylum seeker hotel policy, which we are having to clean up, caused all sorts of problems all over the country. They actively stripped money out of poorer communities and then boasted about it, leaving high streets to fall into decline and the people living in those communities feeling that the country was going backwards and was offering them nothing.

On the definition, there is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door. We will not do what the Conservatives did and stand by and simply watch while Muslim communities face targeted abuse in ways that any decent country would consider to be absolutely intolerable. As for English language teaching, they cut funding for it by 60%, and then have the cheek to stand there and say there is not enough of it going on. When I was a student, I volunteered to teach English to refugees. I suggest the hon. Gentleman does the same thing, because it is enriching for the volunteer and beneficial for the person learning English. Speaking the same language is fundamental to social cohesion.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I welcome the narrative he has spoken about, because I think it will give a lot of strength to people in my constituency. Can I ask him a practical question, though? I hear a lot from people with Muslim-sounding names that when they apply for jobs—research also shows this—they are three times less likely to get a positive response than someone with a western-sounding name, even if they have the same CV and qualifications. Of course I will be speaking about the narrative that he has talked about from the Dispatch Box, which will be welcome in my constituency, but what does he want me to say to the young Muslim and black men on the Kilburn estate in my constituency who are rejected when they are looking for jobs because of how their names sound?

[Steve Reed]

Many Members across the House will recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, which will have been communicated to us by our own constituents. There are laws against outright discrimination, and those must be properly enforced, but we hope the definition will help the vast majority of employers—people of goodwill—who may not understand the nature of hostility towards Muslims or people who appear or sound like they are Muslim to see how employers contribute to that hostility. The intention of the definition is to enable those individuals and employers to better understand the circumstances, so that Muslim people are given the same opportunities and chances in life as anybody else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we have consistently called for its publication without further delay—it was promised last year. This should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots. To suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country—challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who should know better. Given that almost 140,000 hate-related offences have been recorded in the year to March 2025, it is clear that action is definitely needed at a national level.

To support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces—youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of background, we come to recognise how much we have in common with each other. Will the Secretary of State outline how faith communities will be properly supported and involved in proactively preventing division?

The Government also previously committed to promoting local faith covenants as a way of strengthening partnerships between councils and faith groups. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new strategy will provide practical support for local authorities to implement those covenants, especially given that many councils are on the brink financially?

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her party’s welcome of the strategy. It is important that we give it as much backing as possible because there is an awful lot to fix in what the previous Government left behind.

On help to build communities, our Pride in Place funding makes available £5.8 billion across nearly 300 constituencies. The intention is that the communities themselves will take the decisions about how that money is spent. I have been to visit some of those communities already. Frequently, there is multi-faith engagement in taking those decisions on the neighbourhood boards. That brings groups together and gives them a role, together with other community organisations, in taking decisions about how they can build cohesion and, indeed, community in their localities.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The reality is that the abhorrent rise in inflammatory rhetoric from national figures, including in this place, has normalised Islamophobia to the extent that it is now open season on British Muslims. This scapegoating feeds a hostile environment, and recent violent attacks on British Muslims show the real-world consequences. Let us be clear in this House: this is not just an attack on British Muslim communities; it is a direct challenge to the British values of fairness, respect and the rule of law. We must stand united in saying that British Muslim communities deserve safety, dignity and the freedom to exist without fear, like every other community. Can the Minister set out how the strategy will directly address this open season of hatred against British Muslims?

[Steve Reed]

I of course recognise what my hon. Friend says. We have a situation where over 40% of all recorded religious hate crimes target British Muslims. That is wildly out of proportion with the number of Muslims in our country. The reason we are publishing this strategy today, and the reason that it includes the anti-Muslim hostility definition, is so that we can better tackle the problem by describing it and then reviewing how we disseminate it with partners, institutions and groups across the country to give Muslims access to the freedom and rights they deserve, just as much as anybody else in this country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, I come from an immigrant family and grew up in a household where a foreign language was primarily spoken by my grandparents, my father was bilingual and I was monolingual with the language of the country that my family had come into. The key to it all working is a willingness to integrate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there are measures in this overall plan, which seems to have much to commend it, that are designed to prevent separatism and ghettoisation in society? Where that exists, a community becomes impossible to navigate in the way that we would all want it to be navigated.

[Steve Reed]

There is an awful lot in the report, and I cannot go through all of it because I will further annoy Madam Deputy Speaker by using up too much time, but if I might point to one area, we are allocating £500,000 to link together schools from different communities so that children growing up, perhaps with their friends from the same community, can get to know and better understand children from other backgrounds as well, and to understand that they live in and are part of a thriving, diverse community.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I recently attended an anti-hate crime seminar organised by the Rochdale Council of Mosques. It struck me that it was clear that innocent Muslim men, women and children are subjected to vile Islamophobia in the street and blamed for terrorist outrages, just as Jews are subjected to vile antisemitism and blamed for the actions of Israel. I welcome today’s new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, which is needed every bit as much as that existing definition of antisemitism. I note that the definition of antisemitism has not had a chilling effect on free speech either.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which are well made. It is important that, even going beyond this strategy, our existing laws against abuse and hate crime are properly enforced up and down the country, but we expect and hope that the definition will help organisations and individuals to better understand what causes anti-Muslim hostility and therefore how we can prevent it from happening.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

All forms of abuse are appalling. All forms of targeted abuse—be they against Muslim, Jewish or black communities—are even more appalling. I would be interested to know why the word “Islamophobia” does not appear in the statement, when that is clearly an enormous problem in our society. I am unclear about whether the Secretary of State took any advice from the Muslim Council of Britain, which has often been very helpful in explaining to the wider community the consequences of Islamophobia. Does he not think that there must be much greater concentration on the role of the racist far right in our society, which, on social media and elsewhere, continually incites—subliminally and overtly—violence against identifiable minorities all over the country, with devastating consequences for the security, safety and wellbeing of many people on our streets?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: it is important that we tackle all forms of abuse and discrimination, no matter which minority group they target. That is why, in the case of the Muslim population, we have included the anti-Muslim hostility definition as part of our report. The language for that came from the working group itself, which of course included many senior and well-respected figures from the Muslim community.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

My constituents tell me about the increased level of hate crime against Muslims. I hear stories of women being abused or having their hijabs pulled off. That is a direct result not just of most of the coverage in our right-wing media, but of politicians in this place, some of whom have held the highest offices in the land, including the Leader of the Opposition. They feed into this narrative and cause anti-Muslim sentiment. What more will we do to counter the level of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise well and with deep sorrow the situation that my hon. Friend describes. It is outrageous that over 40% of all recorded religious hate crime targets Muslims—that is way out of line with the Muslim proportion of our population. We have published the report, the entire plan and the definition to encourage and support organisations in tackling the forms of discrimination that blight the lives of British Muslims up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement, in which he described the society we all wish to live in. It is the society that I wish to live in, too. As he will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks up for those of the Christian faith, those of other faiths and, indeed, those of no faith. Respect is core to realising that we can all live together. In Northern Ireland, the past 34 years have shown that Protestant and Roman Catholic can live together. We have seen that in my constituency of Strangford. In Ards, the local mosque is side by side with the Presbyterian church, and there are no problems and no attacks—nothing happens. Christian Syrian refugees came to Ards for sanctuary under the refugee allocation of the last Conservative Government. Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to see what has been done in Northern Ireland, as he considers the pluralistic society that he desires? Will he ensure that all religious beliefs are treated and respected equally?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right: there will be much to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland in bringing back together disparate communities, particularly in the period since the troubles came to an end with the Good Friday agreement. I will ask my Department to reach out and make sure that we take those lessons on board.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers; the previous Minister, Lord Khan, who started the process; and the working group for all their hard work. The Centre for Media Monitoring launched its landmark “The State of British Media 2025: Reporting on Muslims and Islam” report today. It is the largest study of its kind ever conducted in the UK, analysing more than 40,000 articles across 30 outlets. It finds that nearly 50% of all UK media coverage about Muslims contained measurable bias, and 70% associated Muslims or Islam with negative behaviours or themes. This is not a fringe problem; it is systemic. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the definition of anti-Muslim hostility will be taken seriously by Ofcom, so that media outlets that spread conspiracy, target Muslim communities and actively undermine the social cohesion of this country are held to account?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support today and for her advice on these issues over many years. I recognise what she says: the vast majority of coverage of Muslims in the media is negative and completely misrepresents the experience and contribution of Muslim communities. Yes, it is important that we engage with Ofcom, broadcasters and indeed other public institutions to ensure that they take on board the definition and work to improve their performance.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said:

“There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.”

I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?

[Steve Reed]

We already have the fastest growing G7 economy in Europe thanks to the Chancellor, so I do not think she needs the hon. Gentleman’s advice.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

In times of increasing division, there is no place for divisive rhetoric, and the Government clearly have a role to play in supporting cohesion. The Tories clearly failed in that respect; we have heard again of their inability to embrace the United Kingdom of today. I welcome the definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Racism against Muslims, Jews and people of all backgrounds, including Sikhs, is sadly increasing and needs to be tackled. Many hate attacks on Sikhs are recorded as Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred, and it is important that that data is disaggregated. However, the United Kingdom is a very diverse country, so can the Secretary of State outline how his proposals will support people of all backgrounds, including in less diverse communities such as rural and coastal communities and smaller towns?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the response of the official Opposition was disappointing, because it implied that they have learned nothing since their historic election defeat a year and a half ago. Pride in Place—£5.8 billion distributed to almost 300 constituencies—will give some of the most held-back communities in the land up to £20 million each, and local people will choose how that money is spent. Whatever the demographic make-up of individual communities—be they more or less diverse—that will bring local people together to make decisions for themselves. The restoration of power to communities will help to build resilience within them, for whatever challenges we may face.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State believe that echoing Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech strengthens community cohesion?

[Steve Reed]

That did not happen.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

The publication of the definition of anti-Muslim hostility has been almost a decade in the making. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Faith for their determination to define the hate and prejudices that Muslims face. As the Secretary of State knows, the definition must command the confidence of the Muslim communities that it is meant to support, so will he commit to an extensive outreach programme with a diverse range of Muslim community groups to ensure that the definition has the necessary community buy-in to begin tackling the deep-rooted hatred faced by Muslims in Great Britain?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his years of leadership and advocacy on this issue. To have his support makes me even more proud that we are bringing forward the report and the definition today. Of course, it is critical that we carry out the work to ensure that the definition is disseminated widely, through local government, schools, universities, the NHS and broadcasters—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) implied—so that it can have the biggest impact possible in protecting Muslims from abuse and discrimination.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I welcome that the strategy acknowledges that antisemitism, an increasingly concerning issue, is being normalised in many corners of society. Indeed, 2025 saw the second highest annual total ever recorded for anti-Jewish hate incidents, at 3,700. What action is the Secretary of State taking to protect the Jewish community from those who may see Israel’s involvement in Iran as an excuse to attack British Jews?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a danger and threat that we all recognise, and much in the action plan will cover the issues he is talking about. For one thing, we are reviewing the visa watch list to ensure that extremists and hate preachers are not given visas to enter our country. Secondly, the Charity Commission will get new powers to close down charities that are promoting division, including antisemitism.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the social cohesion strategy as we seek to unite our communities. In Altrincham and Sale West, we are fortunate enough to have some fantastic interfaith groups and organisations, and I give a special mention to “The Rabbi and The Imam” project. With antisemitism and Islamophobia on the rise, the project brings together local Muslim and local Jewish leaders to talk about their faiths, focusing on shared humanity, understanding and unity, including going into local schools. Is that exactly the kind of initiative that the Government and society need to get behind to counter extremism and hatred?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent example from his constituency; interfaith projects such as that will make the difference. Communities will be supported to take action to tackle the division that is trying to be forced on us, and on all of them, by hostile actors who want to weaken our communities and thereby weaken our country.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

In 1979 my father took me to Newton Stewart cinema to see “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, and I recall my father being more upset by a spoof travel documentary that preceded the main film, because there was swearing in it, than he was about the supposed slights to Christianity. It was an early lesson to me that no one in this country, in a modern democracy, has the right not to be insulted or offended, so why are we in this place, the cockpit of democracy, discussing a blasphemy law by the back door?

[Steve Reed]

I am sorry that the hon. Member has chosen to misrepresent the definition. It is intended to protect Muslims from abuse that we know is shrinking people’s lives and life opportunities. One would hope that everyone in this House would get behind actions intended to give Muslim people the same chances as anyone else in our country.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the community cohesion strategy, which the Labour group of Hope not Hate, which I chair, has been calling for. The Secretary of State will know that the other side of the coin when building community cohesion is the counter-extremism work to stop people being radicalised in the first place, whether that is people on the far right with anti-Muslim hatred, or people on the far left with anti-Jewish hatred. What action will be taken to address those who perpetrate such myths about people, whether they be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Jew, and what resources might come from the Department to achieve that?

[Steve Reed]

The Government are intending to bring into force and fully utilise the powers available in the Online Safety Act 2023. By doing that, we think we can tackle some of the worst online sources of disinformation and hatred that are being spread around to sow division in our communities.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Muslim people across the country face intensifying, dehumanising and often violent racism every day. Now that we have a definition, I am desperate for the conversation to move towards action. How quickly will the Government now move from definitions towards a clear and funded road map for action, including proper monitoring and accountability?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member is right to call for action, and I agree with her point. We will now engage in a review of how best to disseminate the definition, and put it into action so that it makes a difference to people’s lives. There is £5 million of new funding in the report, but Departments across Government will have sources of funding that also can be used to disseminate the new definition. We are committed to appointing an anti-Muslim hostility tsar, who can advise and be a critical friend to the Government in doing the work that we need to do. We will engage widely across local government, schools, universities, broadcasters, the NHS and others to agree on how we can best utilise the definition in order to support the Muslim community.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I have long been arguing that we need an overhaul of charity regulation to tackle rogue operators who are exploiting charity status to peddle extremism and hate, so I am thrilled that the Government have listened and are starting that today with new powers for the Charity Commission—I look forward to seeing the detail. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Charity Commission will have a range of sanctions to impose where needed, and that there will be clear communication with HMRC to ensure that sanctioned and shutdown charities can no longer abuse public money through Gift Aid?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Charity Commission will be getting new powers so that it can close down those organisations that purport to have charitable objectives but are really cover for promoting hatred and division. With the changes we are announcing today, that will no longer be allowed to continue.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

We all agree that there is no place in our society for hatred or discrimination against anybody, anywhere. Islamophobic incidents in the UK are at record levels; there are thousands of incidents each year, with many more likely to be unreported. Abuse is increasingly normalised and politicised through media, TV and online, at institutional as well as street level. Police data shows serious undercounting, making specialist monitoring essential. Islamophobia in the UK is not limited to fringe behaviour, and data shows a pattern of escalating hostility and normalisation in public discourse, including in this place and the other place. How will this definition be integrated into the Nolan principles, and what sanctions will apply to Members of this House and Members of the other place?

[Steve Reed]

It is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House, but the hon. Member is right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims. It is under-reported, in all likelihood, because we know that not all instances of such crime are reported.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Steve Witherden—[Interruption.] I mean Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are easily confused.

Yesterday I attended Open Heavens church in Wester Hailes, and a man told me how he had faced open racism from his colleagues and had been forced to resign, take his employer to court, and win his tribunal—a fantastic achievement. It was a shameful episode, but what made it worse was that he was an NHS consultant, and it was the NHS that he took to court. The point he made to me on the floor of the church was that too often society views hate as a series of events, rather than a culture. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has presented today will result in a change of culture, rather than simply addressing events? How will we measure that as we proceed through the remainder of this Parliament?

[Steve Reed]

We will measure the outcome of the report through new measures as part of the social cohesion framework that is described in more detail in the action plan, and we will be engaging directly with major employers, including the national health service, to ensure that they are taking every possible action to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, whichever groups might be targeted.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Many facets contribute to causing division in society, not least the cost of living. When we saw the march in London, a large number of the audience there were racist, but a large majority of the people attending were not racist, they were just concerned about the cost of living. How does the Secretary of State see this definition incorporated, in terms of holding our far-right media and social media platforms to account, and how do we balance that with addressing the cost of living crisis?

[Steve Reed]

Part of the action that the Government are taking is the allocation of £5.8 billion to some of the most held-back communities in the country—over 300 constituencies will benefit from that funding. It will be local communities, through neighbourhood boards, who will decide for themselves how that money will be spent, directly addressing poverty but also directly addressing the lack of power that many of those communities feel. That will deliver the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman is describing and that we all want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Rachel Taylor to ask the final question.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

As part of my work on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have heard at first hand from victims of horrific hate crimes, who have been targeted just because of how they looked and who they were. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will finally deliver the funding, resources and a call to action to empower communities like mine in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to bring people together and to combat those seeking to create division and hatred across this country?

[Steve Reed]

There is much in this report, and I hope that Members will take the opportunity to read it in full, including the definition and the many other proposals. This country is strongest when it is united, and the intention of this report is to bring this country back together in the face of those who have tried to pull our communities apart.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 9.00pm at today’s sitting.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 2, 5, 16, 17, 19, 21, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 102, 105, 106, 1, 3, 4, 6 to 15, 18, 20, 22 to 36, 39, 40, 43, 45 to 101, 103, 104, and 107 to 121.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Question agreed to.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Steve Reed Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

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

This Government have published “Protecting What Matters”, which has been laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, setting out initial steps to strengthen social cohesion in the UK.

Our first duty as Government is to protect our country. That means fighting back against hostile actors from home and abroad and bringing those of us who are proud of the UK together in pursuit of a safer, stronger, more prosperous country.

As a nation we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together. But the foundations on which this country has been built, from which our principles of compassion and community were originally drawn, have been rocked.

Economic shocks, austerity, technological change, demographic changes and the rise in extremism have each made people feel as if they have lost a sense of control over their lives, their country and their community. They have reacted not just at the ballot box, but through online echo chambers exacerbated by malevolent algorithms, and in the polarisation of public life leaving us more detached from one another and less resilient.

The threat this presents to our cohesion is not academic. People from different backgrounds getting on together is not a nice-to-have, it is a fundamental precondition to the Britain we have come to expect and one that is needed for Britain to thrive in the 21st century.

This plan is what patriotism means to this Government. And if you say or imply instead that patriotism has anything at all to do with the colour of someone’s skin or their religion, then you are wrong, and we will fight you. We choose to celebrate our national successes and historic achievements, we choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times, and we choose to take on those who try to divide us.

Our “Protecting What Matters” plan sets out our initial steps:

Confident communities: Recognising that communities thrive when there are strong connections between people from all walks of life, we will invest in the spaces and structures that bring people together and restore a sense of pride in the places we live. Headline policies include:

Committing up to £5.8 billion across almost 300 places, including up to £800 million over 10 years to a further 40 areas where social cohesion is under pressure, as part of the Pride in Place programme.

Investing £500,000 to fund additional community-led, school-linking projects, on top of the local authorities already funded.

Stronger oversight of home schooling to ensure all children receive a suitable education and meaningful opportunities to meet, learn and play with their peers.

Cohesive communities: Cohesive communities not only bring people together but create the conditions for them to integrate and live full lives. This publication clarifies our shared responsibility to manage the pace of change in our communities, support integration and remove divides within communities, encouraging people to come together and foster a shared sense of belonging and understanding. Headline policies include:

Setting clear integration expectations for communities, focused on stronger social connections, shared identity, a shared language and participation in work.

Mandating that citizenship is taught in both primary and secondary schools in order to highlight the relevance of the democratic process and constitutional principles such as the rule of law, as well as raise awareness of threats to democracy

Developing a social cohesion measurement framework to provide clearer, consistent metrics to measure local cohesion, and developing a cross-Government integration strategy underpinned by strong collaboration with local and strategic authorities

Tackling religious hatred through actions including rolling out training across the civil service, further protective security funding for faith communities, and ensuring hate crimes are prosecuted with the full force of the law.

Acting on the recommendations of Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges, and on the recommendations of Lord Mann’s review of how the healthcare system deals with antisemitism and other forms of racism.

Adopting a definition of anti-Muslim hostility that focuses on protecting individuals. With levels of anti-Muslim hate crimes at a record high, this non-statutory definition will serve as a tool to improve understanding, reporting, and wider approaches to tackling anti-Muslim hostility. It will support wider efforts to tackle religious hatred and build safer, more cohesive communities, while crucially ensuring everyone’s rights to freedom of expression are protected. Copies of the definition have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Resilient communities: Citizens have a right to expect that the Government will foster the conditions in which connection, pride, and confidence can flourish. Underpinning all of this is keeping people safe both online and offline, and stopping those who seek to undermine our shared values by radicalising others into committing acts of extremism. Community cohesion is therefore critical to our national security. Headline policies include:

Embedding the Government 2024 extremism definition across Government, working closely with frontline partners such as the police, recognising that a consistent understanding of extremism is essential to tackling it effectively.

Publishing an annual “State of Extremism” report setting out the nature and scale of the current threat facing the UK and Government action to counter its activity and influence.

Strengthening Charity Commission powers to tackle extremist abuse, including the power to shut down charities and suspend trustees.

Strengthening measures to counter extremism in university campuses, including monitoring of non-compliance with the Prevent duty.

Enhancing our specialist disruptions unit to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK.

Expanding the reach of our visa taskforce to stop extremists entering the UK.

Boosting media literacy and ensure greater transparency for online platforms.

I hope the House will support this action plan because its aims and policies are long-term, but we will be unwavering regardless, because we have already made our choice: in place of division, we have chosen unity.

We know that the real Britain has made that choice too. The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fetes to bring their kids together. The real Britain is where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club, with the same passion as they would support their nation in the world cup. The real Britain is where councillors and officers fight for the place they call home, day-in, day-out. The real Britain is out there—it might not be as loud or as brash as those who seek to divide us, but it is far, far greater in number. Real patriotism is about backing them up. Real patriotism is on their side.

[HCWS1389]

Representation of the People Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

There is a lot of interest from Members across the House in this Bill, and that is no surprise, because we are all proud of our British democracy. Our democracy is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. The long history of this House has been punctuated by reforms that have strengthened it. It is precisely because of that evolution of our elections and Parliament that in a world where too many beacons of democracy have dimmed, ours still shines brightly.

As parliamentarians, we are more than caretakers of democracy; we are here to actively advance it and to protect it from threats. When hostile actors at home and abroad seek to sow division, using every means possible to undermine our elections, trying to destabilise the very foundations of our freedom and our democratic institutions, then we must act. That is why we are debating the Representation of the People Bill: to secure our elections against those who threaten them; to protect those who participate; to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters; and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.

At the 2024 general election, Labour’s election manifesto committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. We campaigned on encouraging participation in our democracy, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and improving voter registration, while fulfilling our pledge to strengthen protections against foreign interference, as well as to introduce rules around donations.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I have come straight to Parliament from Kingsbury school in my constituency, where the year 11 pupils were saying how much they are looking forward to being given the right to vote, so may I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that forward in the Bill?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.

We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

We are tightening the rules on donations so that the system can be much more robust and has much greater integrity than is currently the case.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), published our strategy for modern and secure elections in July 2025. The strategy promised to restore faith in our democracy. It set out new tasks of future-proofing our democracy, keeping our elections safe, upholding our values and protecting against foreign interference. We promised to expand the democratic rights of young people and set a path towards automated voter registration.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Secretary of State recognise that when young carers and young adult carers get to the age of 16, they have potentially already been caring for a loved one for over a decade? They are emotionally intelligent and educated enough, and have enough life experience, to deserve the democratic right to vote.

[Steve Reed]

That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.

We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?

[Steve Reed]

As always, my right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.

The reason the Bill extends the vote to younger people, aged 16 and 17 years old, is simple: it is because young people are our nation’s future. The voting age has stood at 18 since it was lowered from 21 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. More recently, the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 for Senedd elections in 2020 and for local elections in Wales in 2021. The Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and subsequently for all devolved elections in Scotland. The change in the Bill will bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the United Kingdom.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the same arguments that were made over 100 years ago about women not being fit enough to vote are now being repeated for 16-year-olds? The success that ultimately came from including women in the franchise should give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.

[Steve Reed]

I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.

[Steve Reed]

To correct the hon. Gentleman, it is not me, but the House, that would be allowing 16-year-olds to vote. If people can serve in the armed forces, they should have the right to help to choose their own country’s Government, who decide on matters of war and peace. We have just heard from the Prime Minister what an outstanding job our armed forces are doing.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will remember that when we both served on Lambeth council, I had the absolute honour of introducing the youth mayor elections. Up and down the country, there are 16-year-olds in public office, including many young people allocating funds in some cases in excess of £25,000 to other community groups. Young people have the capacity and knowledge, and they are willing to serve if we give them the opportunity. Does he agree?

[Steve Reed]

I always agree with my hon. Friend, and not just because we are friends. I remember her introducing the youth mayor scheme in Lambeth; it was a huge success and showed how keen young people were to be involved in decisions that affect them, as well as their ability to contribute to discussions and debates in a very meaningful way.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will take one more intervention.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend will hear about that further along in my speech.

I need to make progress, or you will be angry with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are looking at automated voter registration so that about 7 million or 8 million people in this country who are entitled to vote but do not have the vote can do so. We need to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to the vote can exercise it.

The Bill allows prospective voters to register in preparation before they turn 16. As we extend the franchise in this way, we will focus on data protection. Information can be shared only in very limited circumstances, and we are bringing forward a new offence of information being wrongly disclosed.

To ensure that all our eligible young people can participate, we are introducing a new duty on local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland to support looked-after children with their new right to vote. Local authorities and HSC trusts in Northern Ireland will have a duty to raise awareness of how to register and to provide assistance to help them do so. Extending the franchise is not simply “job done” with this legislation; we need to actively support young people to exercise their right to vote. We will offer young people the information and support that they need to do precisely that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was saying a moment ago, up to 8 million people in the UK are either registered incorrectly or not included on the electoral register at all. Many of them find out only when it is too late, so they are denied their opportunity to vote. Our current process is out of date and has not kept pace with the world that we live in. We will replace this complicated, bureaucratic system with a modern, automated alternative that is as simple as possible and easier for voters to use. To get there, the Bill will allow pilots that test new and innovative approaches to electoral registration. Automated registration is already working in many countries: the examples of Germany and the Netherlands show how easy it can be.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.

Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.

There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

[Jim Shannon]

We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?

[Steve Reed]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

[Joe Powell]

Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.

A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.

We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.

We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.

We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.

The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.

We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.

[Steve Reed]

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.