partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Powell

   Representation of the People Bill

   I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government. We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more. I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome. I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence. We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win. This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods. I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests. I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately. As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

   EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Before I start, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on the media’s conduct in the referendum. I will touch briefly on the issue of music. I was speaking recently to an orchestra member who is active in my local party over the weekend about the issues that he has experienced with touring, and to a local venue operator who used to welcome musicians from Europe to Northumberland. It supported our tourism sector and supported the exchange of ideas. It enhanced opportunities for young people to see the world beyond the north-east. It is a crying shame that we have lost not just the ability for our musicians to go abroad, but the ability to welcome people into our areas to play in some of the iconic venues of the north-east. Given the time allowed, I will focus my remarks on trade deals and the way that the agricultural community has been treated in those trade deals—in particular, the impact of leaving the EU and the now complete absence of scrutiny of those deals. We no longer have any appropriate democratic input into how those terms of reference are agreed and how civil society can properly feed into them. When we were a member of the European Parliament, we at least had a methodology, however imperfect, for agreeing those terms of reference, bringing them forward and making sure that farmers had a seat at the table when those trade deals were being agreed. Given how the Australian and New Zealand trade deals disadvantaged sheep farmers in my constituency, had there been a meaningful vote or meaningful parliamentary consultation, there is no way that the former MP for my constituency could have voted for that deal with a clean conscience. It is to his shame that he never raised his voice in opposition to it. I also want to touch on the issue of trade movements, referred to in the introductory speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). I thank him for securing the debate and apologise for forgetting to do so earlier. When the EU brings in bans on products, there is a real risk that those goods are then immediately diverted into the UK because we do not have consistency of policy. I have heard that from manufacturers in my constituency who make furniture: they see lower-quality wood products from China coming in that were originally destined for the EU but, because of a policy shift from the EU, have then been redirected en route into the UK market, with the consistent risk of decimating jobs. Constituency MPs then have to run to Ministers and ask for exemptions and for us to catch up to Europe. We must ensure that we have consistency of approach, not just to safeguard jobs, but to grow economies and give business the impetus and confidence to invest in the long term. This is a shorter speech than I intended to give, but I would be grateful if the Minister could come back on those two points about scrutiny and consistency of application of trade protection measures.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

   Representation of the People Bill

   I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Joe Morris

   Representation of the People Bill

   I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that. I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes. I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.

   Hansard source
5. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jodie Gosling

   Representation of the People Bill

   I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring. I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system. AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House. I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo Stevens

   Cross-border Rail Links

   8. I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role and wish him all the best. Earlier this year, my Cardiff East constituents were thrilled to hear of the agreement between this Labour Government, the Welsh Labour Government and private investors on funding to proceed with our long-awaited Cardiff Parkway station on the cross-border main line. The station and adjoining business park are set to unlock around 6,000 new jobs. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the new minority Plaid Government in Wales have confirmed whether they will honour that agreement?

   Hansard source
7. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jo Stevens

   Engagements

   Q3. My Cardiff East constituents are pleased that the Government are funding extra neighbourhood policing for us, but Cardiff is the only capital city in the UK that does not have specific capital city police funding. That means that, as a matter of course, neighbourhood police are pulled away from the job that they should be doing, and need to do, for my constituents. The Prime Minister knows Cardiff well. This historic anomaly is unfair and indefensible, so will he ensure that this problem is resolved once and for all by delivering capital city police funding for Cardiff?

   Hansard source
8. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to hear the debate and the passion that Members have for their areas. I quite liked the county competition for the most beautiful part of England, but I am sure that we can agree that England is magnificent coast to coast, and we should all celebrate that. I will respond to the debate in due course, but I want to start by laying out some of the differences. We are using common language for things that are very different; I think that we are conflating devolution and the powers that will be devolved with the fair funding review and the funding that goes to local authorities. In some cases, there is no clarity on what a regional authority will do to the local authority and community governance, whether that is neighbourhood governance or town and parish councils. In this debate, it has become one and the same. I do not criticise that, and I recognise why that happens. We are all here to represent places and not units of government, so we care about whether our communities are getting the resources needed.

   Hansard source
9. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

   Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

   In a sense, I recognise that there will be differences of opinion, depending on which local authority and what part of the country Members represent, about whether the fair funding review fully picks up all the particular circumstances. There might be more agreement on the sufficiency of local government finance. Whatever the allocation across the board, the fair funding review is intended to distribute it in the fairest possible way and in a transparent way, so that Members and councillors can see where the money is going to. Since coming to power, the Labour Government have delivered long-overdue reforms to council funding through the first multi-year local government settlement in a decade. In doing so, we have delivered transformational changes to how councils are funded, which the public, our local government partners and Parliament have long called for. We have delivered on our commitment to give councils greater certainty and flexibility over their funding, ensuring that resources are fairly aligned to local need and simplifying the funding landscape by ending wasteful competitive bidding, which we all recognise pits one area against another. The Government also have a very important role to play as an equaliser for local government income. During the course of the debate, I heard references to the amount of grant that individual councils get, and one grant total being compared with another. I want to be clear that the fair funding review is not intended to give every council the same central Government grant. That grant is intended to act as an equaliser for the system, so that in the end all councils have the resources to deliver the public service need in their local areas, while recognising that there are wide differences in England in the local tax bases of council tax and business rates. As a result of our reforms, nine in 10 councils will receive funding that broadly matches their assessed relative need by the end of the multi-year settlement, up by about a third before the reforms. We recognise the different drivers in demand for services, the cost of providing them in different places and the different abilities of areas to raise council tax. We are therefore making funding available in such a way as to enable all local authorities to provide the same level of services to their residents. For rural communities, the 2026-27 settlement was a key step in delivering a fairer system to address the issues that matter to local communities across England. It included recognising local circumstances, including differences in the cost of delivering services between rural and urban areas, and using the best available and most up-to-date data, including the latest indices of multiple deprivation to ensure that deprivation in rural areas is captured accurately. I will explain a bit more on that. I heard references to the fair funding review not taking account of the differential cost of delivering services in rural areas. To be clear, we account for rural costs through the area cost adjustment, which is applied to all formulas. That adjustment captures the variation in wages, property rates, journey times, and a range of other factors that pick up the local variation that takes place. On top of that, we have a remoteness adjustment in social care. I hear representations that say, “Hang on. If it costs more to deliver adult social care in these areas, then surely children’s services and other services such as waste collection and other things ought to be included, too.” The area cost adjustment picks up that general difference of delivering a service in those areas. There is a balance here. We want a simplified system that can be scrutinised and understood. The more we adapt and change and really drill down on that, the more complicated it becomes, the more it has to be updated and the more that changes. There is always a balance to be had between simplicity, being understood and giving certainty over the multi-year settlement, while recognising the differences at a local level.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jim McMahon

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    We have always taken the view that the rural services delivery grant had, to put it mildly, a weak evidence base to support it. A political decision was made when the coalition Government came in and the grant that was given to largely urban authorities was taken away with almost no notice at all. It was replaced by the rural services delivery grant, but without the evidence base to support where it went to. Whatever criticism is applied to the fair funding review, what cannot be criticised is the evidence base that sits beneath it, because it is the best available data. We are laying the foundations for reform more broadly. The multi-year local government finance settlement allows for £4.6 billion of additional funding to be available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. The Government are driving the biggest transformation in children’s social care in a generation, with the families first partnership programme backed by nearly £3 billion of investment over four years, including a historic £2.4 billion over the multi-year settlement. That will support local authorities, police and health partners to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision to early intervention and prevention services. The Government recognise that the current SEND system is not working for families, children or local authorities, and we have set out plans to reform it, backed by £4 billion of investment over three years, to deliver expertise without the need for statutory processes and embed new practice into the system. We have also heard calls for a solution to SEND deficits. All local authorities with a deficit will receive a grant covering 90% of their high needs-related deficit. The grant is projected to be worth more than £5 billion nationally, and is subject to each local authority submitting and securing approval for a local SEND reform plan. We recognise the spending pressures from home-to-school transport in recent years, particularly in rural areas. At the fair funding review, we introduced a bespoke home-to-school transport formula that estimates local transport need for pre-16 home-to-school transport, based on pupil numbers and home-to-school distances. Furthermore, following consultation on the design of the formula, the Government increased the distance cap to 50 miles, rather than the originally proposed 20 miles. That change will see only 0.4% of pupil journey distances capped and will avoid unfairly penalising local authorities where children travel further to get to school. We know that the cost of living and homelessness services are causing challenges too, and that homelessness can present in a unique way in rural areas. That is why we are providing more than £4 billion of funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including £442 million launched last month, with new flexibility for areas to shape services to meet local need. The Government are committed to making the changes necessary to transform public services and put local government back on its feet. Realigning funding with need and reforming the services that put pressure on local government will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities in rural areas and right across the country, as we have promised. Devolution is a live issue for Cornish colleagues and those from other places. I give credit to Members for their representations on behalf of Cornwall and other areas. The truth is that devolution can happen only with local consent. We need areas to come forward, get local partnerships in place, and rally the support of local authorities. At a time of change in local government, when areas are also dealing with local government reorganisation, there is a lot for them to step up to. That is why we have provided support for local government reorganisation areas, as I covered in another Westminster Hall debate this week. We want devolution to be rolled out to every area, but we recognise that the local partnerships in different areas are at different stages. There is an active discussion, which we should welcome, about what the role of community and neighbourhoods ought to be in the new settlement—devolution should go hand in hand with localism and empowerment—what the role of the local authority is, and what added value above and beyond that can be achieved if areas choose a mayoral model. To be clear, if an area is not ready yet for a mayoral model, the position is not that they cannot have devolution and that more cannot be given. I hope Members and people in local government continue to do what they have always done: rally their local areas.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jessica Morden

    Housing Affordability

    The Prime Minister has promised to do all he can to end rough sleeping by offering everyone who needs it in England a route off the streets by Christmas. In Newport we have excellent charities such as Eden Gate, which I visited recently, working with the council’s outreach services, but they need more support. Does the Minister agree that the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government should follow Labour’s lead by making tackling homelessness a priority?

    Hansard source
12. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jeff Smith

    Engagements

    Q4. There is promising and exciting evidence about the successful use of psychedelic therapy treatment for trauma, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder and end-of-life distress. Unfortunately, as many psychedelics are schedule 1 controlled drugs, access for clinical research is bureaucratic and difficult. Will the Prime Minister, and Members across the House, consider supporting my amendments to the Health Bill that would keep safeguards in place but remove some of the barriers to some of that important research and treatment?

    Hansard source
13. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I will talk about the impact of the EU referendum on my part of the UK. In ’99, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly was recognised as a region in the EU in its own right and granted objective 1 status, reflecting the fact that we were one of the poorest areas not just in the UK but in western Europe. We received over €1 billion in EU funding between 2014 and 2020. Our economy would not have grown as much as it did over the 20 years of objective 1 status without EU money, but the impact went far beyond economic growth. To give some examples: on trains, we had a passing loop and points put into our train service, which made it much quicker and better; on buses, we set up park and ride; on cars, we had the dualling of the A30. We had an airport funded, which is now floundering. On renewables, United Downs meant our first geothermal power plant was established, while on culture, we had the Hall for Cornwall. In healthcare we had dental and medical schools; we have a combined university campus in Cornwall for the first time. The impacts were huge, and we lost a great deal because of the referendum. Almost everywhere people go in Cornwall, they can see a distinctive—but far too small—blue sign signifying that a building or something else was funded by the EU. That was transformational for us. In 2016, the leave campaign promised that Cornwall and the UK as a whole would not be worse off. That promise has fallen short. We did get shared prosperity funding from the Government afterwards and, along with the other Cornish Labour MPs, I helped to secure the Kernow industrial growth fund for economic growth, but there is a gap: because of that funding, other Government support dwindled. We are now looking forward to a devolution deal, as the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, to make sure that some of that capacity and growth is restored. The impact on our rural communities has been significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) pointed out: particularly on our fishers, who were sold out by the leave campaign, and on our farmers, who had a rocky and uncertain road out of the common agricultural policy and the unhelpful trade deals that we had to deal with. Fortunately, we now have a new land use strategy and the environmental land management deal, and we are working our way out of that. On exports, this Government are looking at a new EU trade and veterinary deal as well.

    Hansard source
14. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I was rushing through due to lack of time. The impact on farmers has been huge in so many ways, particularly with exports and imports. It is really important that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement takes that into account. We are lucky in that we are hoping for a fast outcome on that agreement, to try to mend some of the terrible damage that has been done to our food sector. To conclude, perhaps the most pernicious aspect—maybe even more than the financial trauma—was the way that the Brexit vote split us as a society and hardened and coarsened our discourse. Families fell out. We are still polarised, quick to anger and less tolerant. Politicians and the media—all of us, really—had a part to play in that, and that is taking even longer to fix.

    Hansard source
15. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Jayne Kirkham

    Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate, which is important and relevant to me. I will probably shorten my speech a little, as the Minister is getting a double dose of Cornwall this afternoon—I apologise for that. We underwent major local government consolidation early in Cornwall. We became a unitary, from a county council and six districts, in 2009. We are now the third largest unitary in the country by population and the fourth largest by area, but the 12th least densely populated of the 62. That creates quite unique opportunities, but also challenges. I want to talk a bit about third-tier councils, because the establishment of our large unitary coincided with austerity. The council withdrew from quite a lot of services—all but the most statutory, really. That meant that the third-tier town and parish councils stepped up and took the reins, preventing the sell-off and closure of all sorts of things, such as green spaces, toilets, libraries and leisure centres—so much of the infrastructure that made our town special. It is great having services run by the people who live there and use them, but there are issues that need sorting out. When third-tier councillors’ councils grow, they still get no pay or expenses. We also have conduct issues clogging up the desks of upper-tier council monitoring officers, who do not have the teeth to sort them out. Precepts in towns have grown significantly larger than in rural parishes. People on one side of a road might be paying £30 for their precept, while those on the other side are paying for everything in the town, so their precept could be £400-plus a year, and obviously those parish residents will still rely on those services. Although third-tier councils are now big in Cornwall and have big budgets—£5 million or £6 million—they are still not recognised or trusted to get external funding. Everything has to come through the unitary, which can lead to a parent-child relationship. In the previous White Paper, we had the support of the previous—and now current—Secretary of State for sorting some of those issues out, as well as things like remote voting and meetings for third-tier councillors. I really hope the Department will pick that up again for third-tier councils. On devolution, obviously the Prime Minister made a statement yesterday, which was very welcome. The focus on further devolution and growth in every postcode is very welcome to those of us in places like Cornwall. We did have a devolution deal back in 2015. It was the first non-metropolitan devo deal. We got a level 2 deal in 2023. There have been a number of situations in which we have benefited quite a lot. On public transport, for example, we got the power to franchise buses and make enhanced partnerships back in 2015. So far, we have gone into enhanced partnerships, but we are now running a pilot to see how franchising could work in rural areas, where it is much more difficult to make it work. We picked it up and ran with it. We were the first rural area to introduce smart ticketing, for example. It will be interesting for us and North Yorkshire to see how franchising could be possible in a rural place. Devolution could also be really important for housing. We are working towards a memorandum of understanding with Homes England, but a full strategic place partnership would also be helpful and important to us. Turning to economic growth, we lost all our EU funding in 2020, which led to a real slowdown in our growth. We did have the shared prosperity fund, but that is now finished. We had access to the Kernow industrial growth fund, which was fantastic, but we continue to need economic growth support in emerging areas, which chimes and aligns very well with the Government’s industrial strategy. The Prime Minister has been talking a lot about the devolution of post-16 skills. In Cornwall, we know our businesses—so does the council, and the further education providers. That could work really well for us, so I am really excited to talk about a future devolution deal with the Prime Minister, as well as making the epic trip to Manchester and going to No. 10 North. Although devolution is an exciting example of progress, it cannot overcome the financial pressures facing our more rural councils. We have heard some examples of things that cost more. Cornwall’s core spending power fell between 2010 and 2018 because of austerity and that Conservative Government, but funding has improved since then and the Government have made efforts to create a fairer funding settlement. Nevertheless, we are still below others in real terms. We have also used the second homes council tax premium, which brought in around £23 million, but even with that we remain in that position. Rurality and peripherality make things cost more. We have heard some examples already, but I want to mention temporary accommodation, as a room in a Travelodge costs £50 in the winter and £100 in the summer. Meanwhile, home-to-school transport is crazy expensive. We cannot use buses and end up using taxis, and there are long distances involved, which makes it difficult. Furthermore, contracts for emergency accommodation also go through the roof in the summer. In children’s social care, there are very few providers and contracts get very few bidders. It is very difficult and we end up having people placed out of Cornwall, which is a very long way to go and is not good for the population. There is also a population increase in the summer; we get about 4 million visitors. That is fantastic and it is good for our economy, but it increases demand on vital services, particularly on things such as environmental health, waste collection and emergency services, as well as public amenities. Something like an overnight visitor levy could be used for that, and we are quite excited about the potential for that to be devolved. In conclusion, Cornwall highlights the opportunities and the challenges of rural upper-tier authorities. We are further down the line than a lot of other authorities—we have had a unitary authority for a long time—and we have seen where that takes us, particularly having lost services that are then picked up by the third tiers. Devolution will be good for us because it will mean that those decisions are taken locally, but for rural authorities to really thrive, that funding needs to reflect the additional costs and pressures of where we are in those sparsely populated areas and the fact that transport in particular is so difficult for us.

    Hansard source
16. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    Over the summer I was with a constituent who, while celebrating the UK Government’s recent music strategy, recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the significant challenge of getting into Europe. Fifty-nine per cent of UK musicians say that touring in Europe has become unviable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that British musicians and other touring artists face barriers that did not exist pre Brexit? Would he encourage the Minister to look seriously at accelerating improvement in this area?

    Hansard source
17. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Naish

    EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

    I think we need to be really explicit about the impact on farmers. It costs £200 for health certificates on each consignment with physical checks on dairy, fish and red meat. My hon. Friend does a huge amount of work on behalf of her constituents who are farmers, but does she agree that that £200 figure should not be forgotten in debates like this? It is a significant burden on our farmers.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·James Murray

    Employer National Insurance Contributions: Small Businesses in Hampshire

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) for raising this issue today and for bringing representatives of businesses in her constituency to Parliament to listen to this debate about such an important issue. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Government are prioritising growth. In the first half of this year, we were the fastest growing economy in the G7. The Government’s vision is to make sure that growth is felt in every community, high street and postcode. Small and medium-sized businesses are central to that ambition, because they play such an important role in every community across the country, creating jobs, supporting local economies and helping to drive better living standards. Sustainable economic growth depends on stable public finances. Fiscal discipline has to be the bedrock of economic stability, and that stability is necessary to support investment, confidence and long-term growth. As hon. Members will know, the Government have taken decisions on tax, welfare and spending in order to repair the public finances, protect economic stability and fund the public services on which families and businesses rely and into which the hon. Member for North East Hampshire called for greater investment. As part of that wider fiscal consolidation, changes have been made to employer national insurance contributions. Those changes were introduced from April 2025 and were accompanied by significant protections for smaller employers, including the more than doubling of the employment allowance to £10,500. That means that around 900,000 employers—around 40%—will have no employer national insurance liability at all. In North East Hampshire alone, around 2,300 employers benefited from the employment allowance in ’25-26. Overall across the country, the employment allowance was estimated to be worth around £7.4 billion in the last tax year. In addition, businesses can claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, which are worth around £2.5 billion a year. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for apprentices under 25 or employees under 21 on earnings up to £50,270. The UK’s 5.7 million small and medium-sized enterprises are central to growth across the country. The Government are backing them to succeed, supporting entrepreneurship and helping people to live well in every part of the country. Again, I thank the hon. Member for securing today’s debate. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
19. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Helena Dollimore

    Engagements

    Everyone is so excited about the return of the Bayeux tapestry, which comes back to our shores for the first time in almost 1,000 years. That is a testament to this Labour Government’s work to strengthen our relations with European neighbours. Hastings has often been at the centre of historical events, but we have not felt the benefits and we rank in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility. Thanks to my campaign, the young people I represent will get free priority access to the tapestry exhibition and not be priced out by the cost of a ticket. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is great news, and that the British Museum must do all it can to ensure as many as people from my area as possible can see the exhibition?

    Hansard source
20. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gerald Jones

    Strengthening the Union

    The Plaid Cymru Welsh Government marked their first 100 days in office last week with little fanfare—their achievements to date seem to be setting up Committees and commissioning reports, rather than focusing on the needs of the people of Wales. Does the Secretary of State agree that spending time and money on a commission into independence and undermining the Union of the United Kingdom is not the best way to deliver on the priorities for the people of Wales?

    Hansard source
21. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The shadow Secretary of State made a defence of the right for overseas electors to vote based simply on their citizenship. Why, when someone who does not live in this country can vote based on their citizenship, does the right hon. Lady argue that a 16-year-old with the same citizenship rights who lives here and contributes should not?

    Hansard source
22. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Gareth Snell

    Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester Airport Train Service

    Like many, the great residents of Stoke-on-Trent Central enjoy accessing our airports to go on holiday, so they are rightly concerned about the lack of a train link between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport that is similar to the system that runs to Birmingham airport. Having to change at Piccadilly adds delays and means that we have trouble getting businesses down. All the evidence suggests that such a link would be of economic benefit to our city. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, Declares that residents and businesses are concerned about the poor connectivity between Stoke-on-Trent and its nearest airport, Manchester airport, further declares that, at present, local people travelling for work or holidays must take a train to Manchester Piccadilly that goes right past the airport (in south Manchester) before changing at Manchester Piccadilly; further declares that this creates risks of delays, is inconvenient for bigger families with lots of luggage and for older or disabled people; and further declares that a direct connection between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester airport would help to generate inward investment for the area, support jobs for local people, and help to put Stoke-on-Trent firmly on the transport map. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the relevant train operating companies to establish a direct train connection between Stoke-on-Trent railway station and Manchester airport. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003230]

    Hansard source
23. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

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

    Hansard source
24. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    The Representation of the People Bill is central to our plan for fixing politics. Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to show the value of participating in our elections, but the reality is that too many people have lost faith in politics, and we must address the reasons for that. At the heart of this must come measures to reassure the public that the elections they are voting in are fair and free from foreign interference. We must stand against the unprecedented tide of abuse faced by those who put themselves forward to represent their communities. The Bill will secure our elections against those who threaten them, protect those who participate, ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and strengthen, preserve and modernise our elections for the next generation. It delivers our 2025 strategy for modern and secure elections. It takes forward the recommendations of the Rycroft review and meets our manifesto commitments. It sets the foundations for elections that are fairer and a democracy that is stronger. Before I speak to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I thank those who participated in the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her tireless work in getting the Bill to this stage. Cryptoassets have come up in our debates. Cryptoasset transactions create a new and clear route for untraceable money to enter our politics. These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers. The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.[Official Report, 7 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 5WC.] (Correction) This is to prevent malign actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the ban. If recipients fail to comply, they risk enforcement action and, potentially, criminal liability. The Government intend to end the ban once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are satisfied that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance from foreign interference. Ending the ban will therefore require further legislation. We are also amending the definition of “donation” to include arrangements in which a property is used to pay for the expenses of a recipient.

    Hansard source
25. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important and valuable contribution. It is right that a number of amendments are seeking to limit donations originating from cryptoassets. We agree that the anonymity of crypto transactions creates a worrying route for illicit actors to channel money into our politics. This is an area that the Government are definitely keen to continue to review, ensuring that we end any unintended loopholes that may still arise.

    Hansard source
26. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I know that the Committee has looked at this. The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned.[Official Report, 7 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 6WC.] (Correction) As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to review the ban on cryptocurrency because this issue has cross-party support. We need to ensure that the money coming into our politics is clean and traceable.

    Hansard source
27. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the hon. Member. It is a shame that we will not get to spar on this now that he has left the shadow Front Bench. This is a really big issue, and the Electoral Commission needs to be given the space to develop the right regulatory framework. As I mentioned earlier, any new additions or changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring back. I am mindful of time, so I will make more progress. I turn now to the Government amendments that will impose an annualised limit on the amount that overseas electors can donate or otherwise contribute to the UK finance system. That will apply to individuals who have been resident outside the UK at any time in the current or previous calendar year, whether or not they are registered as an overseas elector during that time. The Rycroft review noted two major concerns regarding donations from UK citizens resident overseas. First, it noted that investigating and tracing the origins of the funds used for such donations is more complex than for domestic donations. The review’s second concern was democratic fairness. We have to ask ourselves why should a wealthy individual who has minimised their contribution to the UK Treasury be able to make unlimited donations into our political system. The review proposed an annual cap of between £100,000 and £300,000 on the amount that an overseas elector can contribute into UK political finance. The provisions of the amendments seek to cap this at the lowest recommended threshold of £100,000 per annum.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I want to make some more progress. To ensure the efficacy of this cap, we are introducing a minimum residency period. That will mean that an individual moving or returning to the UK will be subject to the £100,000 cap for the remainder of the calendar year, plus another full calendar year. Measures relating to overseas electors and those who have been registered as overseas electors will be retrospective to the date that they were announced on 25 March 2026. Again, that will prevent bad actors from funnelling money into our elections in advance of the change in the law. We are also applying the cap and a minimum residency period to individuals who move to the UK after 6 July and were not previously overseas electors. The £100,000 annual cap will apply per recipient on donations and regulated transactions made from 6 July until commencement, after which they will be treated in the same way as former registered overseas electors. Further amendments relating to the declarations required for this will follow in the Lords.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the hon. Gentleman and refer him to my previous statement on this area.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I need to make progress. I have a number of areas and amendments to cover, and many Members want to comment in the debate. Overseas electors and those who fall under the minimum residency period will be required to provide a declaration of any necessary information to the recipient to enable them to check whether the donation is permissible. This declaration must be provided before the donation can be accepted. The cap will apply UK-wide and will operate consistently across the political finance regime across UK elections.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important example of where loopholes might exist in this technical area. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on that issue as we continue to develop the Bill.

    Hansard source
32. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I want to make some progress. Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure. Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.

    Hansard source
33. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I must make progress. Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight. The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period. Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors. Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading: “We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.] The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their constructive and informed contributions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to face a telling-off from you, so given the timings, I will not reference each amendment but instead talk broadly about the main themes of the debate. I assure Members, who have asked a number of detailed and serious questions, that I have taken note of many of the questions; I commit to writing to them individually if I do not cover those areas in my closing speech.

    Hansard source
35. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    All of us need to work to protect the integrity of all elections, not just the next general election. Every election should matter. Local elections, regional elections, mayoral elections—every election should have the same weight when it comes to ensuring that it is free from any foreign interference. That is how we strengthen our democracy. A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments on candidate safety, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) spoke about her lived experience. Threats to candidates, campaigners and elected officials are totally unacceptable. Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can already be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. The Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences, and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff. New clauses 58 and 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 for the purpose of the disqualification order, and require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders relating to abuse or harassment when the relevant behaviour was aggravated by hostility towards someone’s status as a candidate, campaigner or office holder. This Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously and recognise the devastating impact it can have on victims. I know the extremely difficult personal circumstances faced by my hon. Friend and thank her for her bravery and continued efforts to raise this important issue. I can give the commitment that we will review these laws and ensure that the necessary protections are in place, as my hon. Friend describes. With regard to domestic abuse convictions, the list of offences in schedule 9 can be updated via secondary legislation. On candidate requirements, the Government recognise that trust in our elected representatives is vital to the effective functioning of our democracy. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill includes a number of measures to strengthen the nomination process for candidates. New clause 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), aims to require candidates who have been convicted and sentenced under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime. This is a complex and sensitive matter, and we must ensure that any proposals that might restrict or deter individuals from taking part in our democratic system are carefully considered.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is right that we look at the range of different requirements placed on candidates. My understanding is that some people, such as local councillors, are required to have DBS checks, but again, as many hon. Members have noted, there is no such requirement for us as parliamentarians; that is something that we need to test and look at further. I can continue to work with her and other interested Members on looking at this area. New clause 48 concerns accessibility for voters and seeks to mandate the provision of audio and tactile devices in polling stations. The Government are firmly committed to supporting democratic participation for all eligible voters. I recognise the important work that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have undertaken to champion accessibility and ensure that disabled people can participate fully in our democracy.

    Hansard source
37. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords. A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps. On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson. I cannot stand here and unilaterally write the terms of reference for the taskforce, but I would be happy to discuss with her at a later stage what the taskforce would entail. She also spoke about voter registration provisions. We will move towards more automated voter registration, but that takes time. We hope to use existing powers or non-legislative approaches as part of that. The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes. Although there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining AI-generated content, we will continue to explore solutions and are taking the first steps forward. Several amendments relate to social media and elections. The Government agree that we must protect the integrity of our elections from malign influence, and greater transparency is part of that. We believe that the way to achieve that is through a new targeted transparency regime. That is why we are strengthening the imprint framework through the Bill. We have taken steps to tackle a range of threats from foreign states that are actively seeking to disrupt our political system. We are alive to the issues that Members have raised in this debate through their amendments, such as those on deepfakes and online harassment, and the Government are continuing to assess the best way to mitigate those concerns.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Florence Eshalomi

    Representation of the People Bill

    I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chaired formerly, will continue to consider such issues, and many hon. Members will continue to feed into our proposals as we develop them. In conclusion, I wish briefly to reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Many Members will recall the toll that the last general election took on those who stood for election. The Electoral Commission’s research told us that more than half of candidates faced harassment or intimidation in the course of campaigning. The Speaker’s Conference heard worse: families targeted, tyres slashed and campaigners driven away from the streets where they were trying to represent candidates. Women and candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds bore this disproportionately. I know from conversations I have had with Members from across the House, including with those who sometimes do not want to discuss the issue because doing so can invite further abuse, that this was not confined to the doorsteps—it reached people’s homes and their families. This is not robust political debate—it is organised intimidation and it strikes at the willingness of good people to stand for office, or even not stand. A democracy that cannot protect those who offer themselves for its service is not in any sense one that is secure. This Bill will not fix that on its own—no legislation could—but it takes this House further than before, extending disqualification for hostility motivated offences to cover election staff as well as candidates, adding a new aggravating factor for such offences, and working with the Electoral Commission on a code of conduct and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates alike. The Bill will sit alongside a wider purpose: trust in our elections is not owed to us as parliamentarians, but earned through the integrity of the system we ask people to trust. The Bill secures a system against foreign and elicit money, closing routes that hostile actors have sought to exploit through crypto-currency, opaque company structures and unlimited overseas donations. It protects the people who make our elections happen—candidates, campaigners and electoral staff alike. It keeps our democracy open to legitimate voters, including for the first time those aged 16 and 17, a change that I have long campaigned for and I am glad to bring to the House as the Minister now responsible for it. It modernises the machinery of registration and absent voting, so that participating in our democracy is neither harder nor more confusing than it needs to be. The next stage of the Bill is shaped by extensive engagement, by the Rycroft review’s recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full, and by many Members across the House who have brought expertise and lived experience, in some cases at a personal cost, to this debate. I thank all colleagues involved in getting us to where we are at this stage, and to state again that the Government remain committed to doing whatever is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. New clause 72 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 76 Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000 “(1) Part 4A of PPERA 2000 (regulation of loans and related transactions) is amended as follows. (2) In section 71F (regulated transactions), after subsection (9) insert— “(9A) A reference to a regulated transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a regulated transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.” (3) In section 71L (offences relating to regulated transactions), omit subsection (12). (4) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations), in paragraph 1 (operation and construction of Schedule), after sub-paragraph (4) insert— “(4A) A reference to a controlled transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a controlled transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.” (5) In that Schedule, in paragraph 8 (offences), omit sub-paragraph (12).”—(Florence Eshalomi.) This new Clause would make amendments relating to the circumstances in which a regulated transaction is entered into for the purposes of Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and takes the place of amendments that are currently made by Schedule 8 to the Bill. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Hansard source
40. 2 Sep 2026·Parliament·Labour·Euan Stainbank

    Representation of the People Bill

    Our democracy is precious but faces significant challenges, and if we want to protect our system, it must change with the times. The turnout for the 2024 general election was far too low, at below 50% in the poorest areas. Property ownership was still dictating representation, with renters voting at a rate of 38%, and owner-occupiers at a rate of 71%. The delta between younger and older voters is still too high. Expanding participation and trust in politics is an issue of equality, but also one of social, economic and generational fairness, and I am proud of the Government’s efforts to address that in the Bill. No Member who has spoken today is under any illusion about the limited trust in our current political system, and the bandwidth of that system to enable meaningful democratic participation, especially among those who need it most. MPs elected with increasingly fractured minority votes, and a Parliament that is sometimes unrepresentative of the voting intentions of the country, repel the trust, participation and engagement that our elected representatives in government need. It is not a party political point to state that; this is about every person stepping up to participate and seeing their vote reflected in this place. When MPs and Governments are enabled with a low share and turnout of the vote, increasingly fewer people see their ballot as meaning anything in this place. If that is their first experience of voting, they are far less likely to vote again. I believe that the Government can give us a route that starts from the first principles of enabling a system to become fairer and more representative and that sustains public confidence through an independent national commission. That is not something that the Government will do today, but they ought to do in the future so that the next Parliament does not start from scratch on long overdue reform to our electoral system. New clause 68, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), to which I have added my signature, requires registration officers to accept postal and proxy vote applications that are received after the deadline when there is proof of timely posting. That is a meaningful effort and step to prevent people from losing their votes after having made reasonable steps to submit it. It is not reasonable for voters to lose their say in an election because of the potential—and quite common—unreliability of the postal system, and the new clause would empower returning officers to count the votes of people who have made an effort in good faith to vote. Sadly, we see amendments from Opposition parties that would limit postal voting, such as Reform’s new clause 108, which would have created serious issues, especially in Scotland. For example, when the last general election was called, the last Tory Prime Minister called it for the first Thursday of the Scottish school holidays, and under new clause 108 thousands of people would have been made ineligible to vote through no fault of their own. In the last wheeze of parliamentary effort, amendments have been proposed to stop votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have to thank Conservative Members, because their arguments have only compounded my belief that this is the right step for the Government to take. It is ludicrous that amendment 6 and subsequent amendments link the voting age to the age that people can buy alcohol as a way of getting around the Government’s manifesto commitment in the Bill to extend the franchise. Perhaps Members would have been persuaded to support the amendment if we were to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote if they then went to a licensed restaurant for a sit-down meal accompanied by an adult. Sadly, that seems to have been omitted in the amendment. If there is a serious concern about where we draw the line on the age of capacity, I make the principled point that allowing 16-year-olds to vote so that they can have their democratic say in how the taxes that they contribute are spent and how the conditions of their labour are regulated is a far more rational place to tie that milestone than whether they would be able to have a pint at 8 o’clock while watching the Scottish premiership. The Government is right on this principle and I am glad that we will be able to achieve this milestone today. Opposition Members have made a lot of references to vote rigging. I find that ludicrous, principally because when votes for 16 and 17-year-olds were passed in Scotland it was with cross-party support, including from the Scottish Conservatives, and because engagement has been increased among 16 and 17-year-olds ever since. I cast my first vote aged 16 in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I was not grateful for the Government of the day. I went out and enthusiastically voted for the SNP—a ludicrous proposal considering how much time I spend in this place opposing SNP measures. I voted because it was the right thing to do and it was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that we have that cross-party consensus today: even if it is a majority and not the unanimity that we had in 2016, it is going to get this over the line. Sadly, the Conservative and Reform amendments have been about restricting political participation; comparatively, what we have heard from Government colleagues has been about expanding political participation. I hope the Government will go further and set up a national commission, but I look at this Bill as the first stage of our political reform agenda.

    Hansard source