5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I completely agree with him, and I remind the Committee that most people in this country are against these changes. Most people who know about the justice system are against the changes—[Interruption.] I know it is really hard for Labour Members to hear that they are not on the side of the people on this one. How has it all gone wrong? They have forgotten who they are and who they represent. It is a sad day.
I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he makes it eloquently, as always. I really enjoyed going through the groups that do not support these proposals. Obviously, the Government like to rely heavily on Sir Brian Leveson’s findings and recommendations, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East questioned him in the oral evidence session, he did not blame jury trials. Fundamentally, jury trials are not the problem. They are not creating the delays, so limiting them will not address the backlog. In fact, their curtailment will likely bring a whole host of other issues to the table that were not there before. The Bar Council believes that the changes “will produce serious adverse consequences that have not properly been considered by the Government.” In the light of such uncertain outcomes, I find it difficult to understand why the Government will not perform a pilot first to test the proposal or put in place a time limitation more generally. To plough ahead in this way, with no way back in the event of failure, is reckless by any measure. A more cautious approach might have been more positively received. As we heard from Kirsty Brimelow KC, the chair of the Bar Council, it is vital that we approach the backlog problem logically, look at where the delays are occurring and target them. For rape cases, the majority of the delay is actually at the investigation and charge point, which takes an average of two years. Although the one-year delay at court stage is too long, the lion’s share of the problem is pre-court—perhaps the CPS can help with that one—so let us deal with that. The Government should open all the courts so that they can hear cases every day. Yesterday, 11% of Crown courts were not sitting, and I am sure we will find out later what the percentage is today. Revising the contract with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services to ensure that defendants are delivered to the dock on time would also help. Giving proper consideration to specialist rape and serious sexual offences courts to deal with sexual offence cases and addressing the many inefficiencies and delays in the system through a better use of technology would no doubt greatly reduce the backlog. It is also important that we give the steps that the Government have already taken to address the backlog an adequate chance to filter through. One example is increased sitting days: in February 2026, the Justice Secretary announced that there would be no cap on sitting days for ’26-27, which will undoubtedly help. In addition, last month, powers were granted to suspend custodial sentences of up to three years, a change from the previous two years. Putting aside whether that is a sensible measure, it will undoubtedly increase the number of guilty pleas. That means fewer trials and a decrease in the backlog. The Government should properly model the impact of those significant changes on the backlog before imposing such a draconian limitation on jury trials. I would be grateful if the Minister could share any projections of the impact of those two changes on the backlog and clarify whether they have been factored into the “do nothing” option of the impact assessment. It looks as though they might not have been included, because they are not referenced. If clause 1 is accepted, there are several types of serious cases where the defendant might now lose their right to elect for trial by jury. It has been suggested by the Justice Secretary that only cases involving minor offences, such as stealing a bottle of whisky, will be impacted, but that is not the case. Let us start with causing death by careless driving. That is a serious offence—rightly so, given that a life has been lost—and it carries a maximum five-year sentence and driving disqualification. Currently, the defendant has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is especially important in such cases, where the difference between careless and unfortunate is not entirely clear. It is exactly that type of case where we see the benefit of 12 individuals, all with different experiences, using their judgment to decide whether the defendant crossed the line into “careless”. Under clause 1, that right is no longer available; the judge will decide on their own. Imagine a defendant who is innocent. Their whole life, and that of their family, is to be decided by one person—their bad day can destroy the defendant’s entire life. Their case might not even make it to a judge; it could remain in the magistrates court. Surely the intention was never for our magistrates courts to hear cases involving the loss of a life. Sexual assault is another serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offenders register. It is also completely life-changing for everyone involved. Under clause 1, the defendant’s right to choose a jury trial will be removed. Many of those cases could end up in the magistrates courts, but they are nothing like the normal cases seen in magistrates courts day to day: they are highly sensitive and complex, involving third-party disclosure, and video recorded and forensic evidence. They are not simple add-ons to what those courts already do. With the best will in the world, they do not currently have the capability or skillset to handle such specialist cases involving traumatised victims.
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I will not comment on that specifically. I am talking about the magistrates courts, which generally deal with low-level motoring offences.
I will look into the hon. Lady’s point, and I have no doubt that we will talk about that later on. Can a Government who pride themselves on putting victims first truly be comfortable with what I have just laid out? Those are just two examples, but we see the same pattern for numerous other serious offences such as actual bodily harm, fraud and affray. In what world can those offences ever be considered minor enough to qualify only for summary justice? I do not believe that this is what victims want, either. For justice to be done, they need to have complete confidence that people will respect and accept the verdict given. That is a key part of the justice process. Limiting jury trials for some of the most serious offences will mean that a verdict, whether innocent or guilty, will lose its current gospel status in the eyes of the populus. Clause 1 sows doubt into our justice system, and that doubt will eat away at it. At the opposite end of the spectrum less serious offences are impacted, but that will still have huge ramifications for the individual in the dock. We must always remember the human being at the centre of this. The offence with which someone is charged may be minor, but that does not stop it being the worst thing that has ever happened to them.
I thank the shadow Minister for that point; I share his concerns. There is also a question regarding whether unpaid volunteers will even want to take on such a serious role that involves handing out two-year sentences—that is quite a responsibility. The outstanding caseload in magistrates courts has been increasing in recent years. In September 2025, the outstanding caseload was around 373,000, which was a 74% increase compared with pre-pandemic levels in September 2019. The shift of cases from the Crown court back into the magistrates court is simply moving the issue to a less suitable court to deal with it. It is simply moving the problem around, rather than actually addressing it. Summary trial through the magistrates court was always designed for the purpose of swift justice in low-level cases. By removing the right to elect for a jury trial, in combination with increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years’ imprisonment and removing the automatic appeal against conviction, important protections are being removed, and the groups that will be impacted most detrimentally are ethnic minorities. Magistrates are unpaid members of their local community who volunteer to act as magistrates. There is no requirement for them to be legally qualified. That may well be fine for summary-only offences, such as low-level motoring offences and minor criminal damage, but it is not appropriate for more serious offences. Many magistrates do an excellent job and give up their time selflessly for the benefit of their community. In spite of that, I do not believe that they should have the power to send someone to prison for two years. Let us all remember that magistrates can be as young as 18. In closing, I want to make one last point. This change was not in the Labour manifesto; indeed, there is no mention of any changes to trial by jury at all. Only one such commitment was made, which Government Members appear to have forgotten. To quote from the Labour manifesto: “Labour will fast-track rape cases, with specialist courts at every Crown Court location in England and Wales.” That is on page 67, if anyone needs to refresh their memory. That is what the British people voted for. The Bill could have been so different if clause 1 had started with that, instead of jeopardising fair justice for many defendants. It is such a shame that a Government with such a historic majority have so quickly forgotten the change they promised, and whom they fight for and represent.
In my speech, I asked a specific question about the impact assessment. One of the options was to do nothing, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clearly articulate what was included in that option. Did it include the impact of uncapped sitting days, or of the three-year custodial sentence? Did it include all the other things that she was talking about, and that are being done anyway, or was the option literally to do nothing? If it was to do nothing, that is not a fair comparison.
I thank the Minister for that point. This goes back and links to the question I raised on the impact assessment. It is really important that we get clarity from the Minister on the impact assessment. The interpretation I am taking from her answer to me on whether existing measures like the suspension of three-year sentences and the uncapped sitting days were taken into account, is that, no, those are not in the “do nothing” scenario. I am struggling with why that would be. Surely, in the impact assessment you need to be showing the reality in order to do a fair comparison? It is reassuring to hear her say that she has looked at these numbers, but why are they not included in the impact assessment so that we can all clearly see them and see why she is taking the decision she is around limiting jury trials?
I thank the Minister for her generosity in taking interventions. I think it may well be a timely point at which to deal with a quick question I raised earlier, about legal aid. Clearly, a defendant is potentially less likely to secure legal aid in the magistrates court than they are in the Crown court. I am sure the Minister will not be comfortable with that situation, so will she be looking to address that inequality that comes from the changes?
To build on the excellent points made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chichester, does this not fundamentally come down to the fact that the CPS is made up of civil servants? They are not meant to tell the Minister that they are wrong or right. That is not their job. I feel those on the Government Benches are misunderstanding the role of civil servants.
I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hope she will bear with me as I try to take it on board. Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 so that a defendant charged with an either-way offence is no longer able to elect trial by jury. As was clearly established earlier today, that right to elect is entirely abolished by clause 1. Instead, it will be for the magistrates court alone to decide where the case should be tried; it can either remain in the magistrates court or go up to the Crown court. Clause 2 deals specifically with situations where there is a written indication of a guilty plea. Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, as inserted by section 6 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, sets out that the court can, on the material before it, without any hearing or representations, be satisfied that it is highly likely that, were the accused to plead guilty at summary trial of the offence in question and be convicted, the court would commit the accused to the Crown court for sentencing. Section 17ZB(5) then provides the accused with the opportunity to object to being sent to the Crown court for trial for the offence. Clause 2 amends that so that the accused and the prosecutor do not have the option to object and can instead only make representations as to whether the sentencing powers of the court would be adequate. I note that “Crown Court” in the original section 17ZB is replaced with “court”. I assume that that refers to either the magistrates court or the Crown court, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and explanation of that quite technical point, and of how it works with the Crown court bench division in the mix. The Bill’s explanatory notes suggest that it just means the magistrates court, but I went through the law— I should say that I am not a lawyer, but I dug it all out and read it—and, like a lot of Committee members, I am thoroughly confused. Normally, if something is logical and makes sense, I can follow it, so I am worried that it does not quite tie together. I am worried, even though I cannot quite articulate why, that the fact that the section will now just say “court” introduces some ambiguity. How is that defined? Quite often, these little bits of detail can be the speck of sand in the eye that can cause more problems than we realise. This is a very technical issue, and I appreciate that it is difficult to go into it here and that the Minister is very good on the technical side of things—we have worked together on other things with very technical points, so I know that she is very thorough—but I think it is worth going through it again and making sure that the whole thing hangs together, so that we do not end up in a situation where the wrong place is doing sentencing or the wrong estimate of a sentence is made, and there is no way to unwind it. I am just a bit worried that there is potential for some problems to come out of this. I appreciate the Minister’s helpful clarification that section 17ZB has not yet been commenced. However, if it had been, or if it were to be in future, it would, in a similar way to clause 1, remove powers and rights from defendants and give them less choice in how justice is dispensed in their case—essentially, a roll-back of rights. As I mentioned, I think we need to look at what will happen if the sentence estimate is wrong and how that will work its way through. I thank the Minister for explaining that the provision is procedural, but it still strips people of the right to object and replaces it with the much weaker right merely to make representations. The explanatory notes are really clear on that point, even if they are not clear on a lot of others. They say that the changes made in clause 2 “remove the ability of the defendant or the prosecutor to object to the case being sent to the Crown Court for sentence”, and instead create “a process for each to make representations about whether the magistrates’ court’s sentencing powers would be adequate.” That might have no impact if the section is never commenced, but if it ever is commenced, and we do not make sure that we have got clause 2 right, it may cause a problem and prioritise convenience over procedural protection. When someone’s liberty, livelihood and reputation are at stake, it is a serious thing indeed to say that they may no longer object and may only make representations. Once again, the defendant is being moved further from the centre of the process, and the state closer to it. That is not right. Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Minister was reminded from the Opposition Benches that the legal system is balanced in favour of the defendant. That is not the spirit in which this change is being made. Indeed, that is the common thread running through clauses 1 and 2: at every stage, the defendant’s agency is reduced and the system’s convenience is elevated. The Government call that reform and improvement, but it is not; it is a distortion of our centuries-old legal protections. There is a broader point here about confidence in the justice system. If the Government’s answer, again and again, is that defendants should simply trust the state’s estimate of seriousness, trust the allocation decision, trust the sentencing forum and trust that everything will work out in the end, that is not a strengthening of justice. It is a narrowing of the safeguards that make justice legitimate in the first place and will do nothing to address the backlog, which I recall was supposed to be the rationale for making these changes in the first place. Clauses 1 and 2 in combination are not what is required to address the Crown court backlog. It appears that the backlog may be starting to come down already, as a consequence of uncapped sitting days and other changes that have been implemented, so why are the Government not taking a more cautious approach and exhausting all the good ideas that we have heard from expert witnesses before taking a sledgehammer to jury trials? Obviously, the first problem to address is the fact that up to 24% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day, and getting the many defendants who arrive late to court there on time would be transformational. Why are we not solving those much more straightforward issues before pressing ahead with exceptional structural reform? We need to get the basics right, address inefficiencies and, most importantly, listen to those who know how to do it, such as the Bar Council and circuit leaders, and learn from the courts that are already making progress, such as Liverpool. The Government are absolutely right to take the backlog issue seriously, but it is wrong to think that limiting jury trials will improve the situation. It could make the whole situation worse by creating years of transition and uncertainty and by moving one backlog from the Crown courts over to the magistrates. Furthermore, the cases moving over will be more complex, more technical and more sensitive. The Government are about to create a massive backlog in the magistrates court, which will then start to impact on low-level cases such as speeding offences. I say that the Government should be more cautious because they have already accepted that there are other levers available. Ministers have announced that there will be no cap on Crown court sitting days next year, and that both the Crown court and magistrates courts will be funded at their highest ever operational level. That is much welcomed, but if the Government say that investment and capacity matter, why on earth would they not wait to see the full effect of those changes before pushing ahead with exceptional constitutional reform? The Opposition position on that has been perfectly clear. On Second Reading, the Opposition’s reasoned amendment did not deny that the backlog is serious, but argued that the right answer is to improve case management, encourage earlier pleas, increase sitting days, increase the hours per day that courts are able to sit through better use of technology and improve the efficiency of prisoner transport. Those are practical, common-sense reforms; they go with the grain of the system, rather than taking a sledgehammer to jury trials and then hoping for the best. The Government’s own impact assessment rather proves the point that this issue is as much about shifting pressure as solving it. It estimates that removing the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial would reduce crown Court demand by around 16,000 sitting days, but at the same time increase magistrates court demand by around 8,500 sitting days. The same document expressly recognises that reallocating cases to the magistrates courts is expected to increase the open caseload there and is likely to extend waiting times for hearing and sentencing in that jurisdiction. Even on the Government’s own figures, it is not some clean efficiency saving. It is a transfer of burden into a part of the system that is already under strain. That is why clause 2 is more important than it first appears. Clause 1 removes the right to elect. Clause 2 then narrows the ability to resist where a written guilty plea is involved. Piece by piece, the Bill is building a system in which more serious, either-way cases are kept down, defendants have less say and the magistrates courts are expected to absorb ever more complexity. Ministers may present each provision as a small adjustment in isolation, but taken together, they amount to a very significant constitutional and practical change. That change also carries transition risk. The Government are assuming that work currently taking place in the Crown court can be absorbed more quickly elsewhere. I know I am not telling the Minister anything that she does not already know, but the magistrates courts are not just a spare room in the system waiting to be filled. They will have to take more serious, more technical and more sensitive cases while continuing to deal with the huge volume of everyday criminal business that only they can process. If the Government get this wrong, they will not have solved the backlog. They will simply have displaced it and degraded the quality of justice in the process. My plea is a simple one: “Proceed with caution. Let the effect of unlimited sitting days bed in. Fix the operational failings that everybody in the system can already see. Get defendants to court on time. Keep courtrooms sitting. Use technology better. Learn from the parts of the estate that are already improving, but do not dress up the removal of long-standing protections as if it were the only grown-up response to backlog. It is not. It is simply the most drastic one.” That is why I cannot support clause 2. On its own, it may look technical, but in context it is part of a broader attempt to reduce rights, safeguards and the defendant’s role in how justice is administered. That is the wrong direction of travel.
I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for innovation, and especially things such as vertical take-off and unmanned flights. However, given that Biggin Hill airport is in my constituency, can the Minister say what provisions there are to ensure that local communities in smaller aerodrome areas are communicated with?
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically brilliant speech—the jokes get better each time we hear them. Does he agree that there are other types of provision? My area of interest is space-based solar power provision, which could provide the same sorts of solutions without taking up precious agricultural land.
Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds. I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those. The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting “should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience” within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error. However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote. It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off. I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division. Question put and agreed to. Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Absent Voting Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8. This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll. Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13. See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15. Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert— “20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert— ‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended. (1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.) This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 49 Power to obtain election-related information etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal. Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating. What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.
We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee. These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.
We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56? Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent? The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever. I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates— I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.
I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.
Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.
I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme. As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure. I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation. Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments. We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation. We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill. The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time we have met in this Committee, but I know you like good order, so I will be brief.
That is the only time the Liberal Democrats have ever cheered me on, so I am glad we are in agreement. The Minister gave a comprehensive outline of the proposals in clause 60. I will briefly talk to amendment 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) but moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The Conservatives think the amendment is well intentioned, but one of my big concerns—I think the Minister outlined this, but perhaps she will return to it in winding up—is the burden that would be placed on businesses, which already have quite extensive regulatory burdens placed on them by Government. I think all parties in this Committee have intimated that everybody wants more transparency and wants to talk more about donations to ensure that we really tighten up the regulatory regime on political party donations. However, although I am not averse to being radical, I think amendment 34 is probably a bit over-burdensome and we do not support it, but we are content to support clause 60.
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I think he is well intentioned, and his speech is well researched. However, as set out in the House of Commons Library note, the Electoral Commission itself has warned that the provisions in the clause “would not reduce the risk of foreign money entering British politics through companies”. What does he say to that? Does he think the Government should do more?
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the clause. It is important that when we have been discussing the nature of this legislation, particularly regarding donations, we have outlined a clear stance that if people want to participate in our political process and make donations, they should have a physical stake in it. Any removal of the ambiguity around campaigners having to look to see whether it is permissible is welcome. It is a reasonable expectation from the Government that there has to be some level of participatory engagement in the political process. We have no problem with the clause; indeed we support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 62 Unincorporated associations making political contributions
I thank the Minister for her remarks. Once again, I would like to say on the record that the Government are making great strides in this area and are trying to strengthen the legislation and the regulatory regime around donations. We agree with her that the amendments—particularly amendment 88—for the reduction to £500 on the reporting threshold for donations from unincorporated associations is simply too low. There could be a debate on whether it should be lowered from what the Government are proposing; I think actually unifying the regulations between companies and unincorporated associations is a sensible thing to do. It removes ambiguity and creates a more uniform system. The burden placed at £500 would create an unnecessary reporting regime.
I have already said that I think the Government are being sensible in creating a unified or level playing field between companies and unincorporated associations. I was not an expert on the previous Act when it was passed, but in my view it is sensible for the Government to be taking this action, now that its consequences are clear, because the Act obviously did not work. If Members across the House look at some of my previous remarks on some of the proposals brought forward by the last Government, I am not ashamed to say that sometimes—I only say sometimes—we got it wrong. That is the nature of democracy. The changes that the Government are making are sensible and my contention is that some of the amendments—especially amendments 88 and 90—use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They create an overburden compared with the Government’s good intentions and what they want to get out of the proposals. We would not support amendment 88 and we certainly would not support amendment 90, but we do welcome the strides that the Government, and the Minister, are trying to take in tightening up the regime.
Does anyone on the Committee intend to speak to new clauses 10 or 24?
In that case, I reserve my right to speak until after the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire did not mind that I gave up speaking to enable her to do so, but I wanted to check whether someone would speak to those new clauses. I wanted to allow her to elaborate the argument so that I could come in with some of my thoughts at the end. As the shadow Minister, I was intrigued, in various meetings that I have had, as we have all had, with outside organisations about the Bill, by the ideas outlined in new clauses 10 and 24. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central for tabling them; they are substantive new clauses that I think are very well intentioned. The number of Members who have supported them on the amendment paper shows the importance of tackling some of these issues in a cross-party and urgent way. On new clause 10, on the guidance on law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined the problems that we are currently having. Digital communication offences are becoming a bigger problem, and they cause harm to people. The current duty is to demonstrate that the person has been harmed emotionally. She used the example of the deepfake that went out of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, showing him saying that he was leaving the Conservative party and going to Reform. Although that has not necessarily been a strange development in the last couple of months, anyone who knows my hon. Friend knows that that is incredibly unlikely. It would also cause a great deal of distress to many of us moderate Conservatives for it to ever be thought that we could go to Reform. There is serious point behind that, which is that for anyone harmed by something like that, there should be laws relating to digital communication offences. We do not think that new clause 10 would be arduous on the Government. It asks them to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences, and it does not ask for immediate action. It allows the Minister and the Government to go away and provide guidance. The Minister has said many times today that she is considering, for example, the Rycroft review, and that she will come back with suitable guidance and proposals. The new clause is in that spirit. It would allow her to go away and look at what we need to do in this increasingly concerning area of election campaigning. The call from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central is eminently sensible, and so we will support new clause 10 if it is pressed to a vote because we want that guidance to be brought in. New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. I do not expect Committee members to remember the questioning in the oral evidence sessions—particularly my questions—but I was really quite fascinated by the proposal. Like the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and other members of the Committee, I have met some organisations that have advocated for it. I do not think that we should be fearful, as politicians and members of any political party, or of none, of standing by the things that we put out in elections. Therefore, instead of going in the bin, as some of mine do, they should be kept online to ensure transparency and accountability through a simple repository regime. The Government have repeatedly proposed to put more burdens—more regulatory responsibilities, I should say—on the Electoral Commission. I do not think this proposal would be a particularly bad burden to place on it. There is a question about resourcing the Electoral Commission, but I know that the hon. Lady and the various organisations that are advocating for new clause 24 are pretty relaxed about who would manage holding the information and transferring it to the National Archives, so I think that is something that the Government should explore. I was interested that the hon. Lady outlined that she is concerned about misinformation, manipulation and the exploitation of the electoral process by foreign actors. I hope that when we come to new clause 37, she will be equally concerned about the exploitation of votes using foreign languages in electoral literature. I hope she will look as favourably on that proposal as I am on this one, because I believe that is equally exploitative of various communities in the country. We support new clause 24, which we think is radical, but sensible and transparent. If we stand by what we put out there, we should not fear the people who elect us holding us to account for what has been put out, so I think that is actually quite an exciting prospect for democracy. That is where the consensus between me and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes Central and for North Herefordshire ends. I have a number of concerns about new clause 27, not because I am opposed to having a general conversation about the regulatory period. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is right that parties of all colours front-load and send out a lot of stuff before the regulated period starts. The regulated period is inherently there to protect the smaller parties from the bigger parties and to give everybody a level playing field. I know that when the regulated period starts—and we are all currently going through the start of one—every party has equal right to put out an equal amount of election literature to people in our constituencies, boroughs or counties. All parties are held to the same standard and it can be proved if there has been—I hope not—manipulation of the election expenses. The regulated period is there to protect parties. Do not get me wrong: in my constituency five Liberal Democrat “in touch” communications go out every year. It drives me mad. I do not like it. I do not like its content, but the Liberal Democrats have every right to communicate with their residents. Putting an annual limit on the amount of literature that can be put out is anti-democratic. It is quite good to have some element of competition, where many parties can put out election communications throughout the year. I worry that having an arbitrary annual cap on the amount of literature that we can put out will harm independent candidates and local parties—they may exist: we have the Eastleigh borough independents, of whom three were successfully elected councillors. They should not be held to the same standard as national parties, which can absorb the cost. I am slightly concerned about the unintended consequences of that. New clause 27 does not outline whether it covers material related to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which some of we elected representatives, choose to put out. We have a budget to communicate to our constituents. Are we going to be held to the same reporting threshold for those IPSA communications, which are not party political but are elected literature? [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Herefordshire like to intervene to correct me?
I am not being adversarial; there is an argument that although the literature that goes out via IPSA is not party political, as an elected official, IPSA is giving me the ability to send out literature that would not be included within the threshold. Other parties that oppose me at the next general election should be entitled to put out resources to match those, and I do not think that should be governed within an annual spending limit. It worries me that if we get to a period in which we are controlling smaller, larger, regional and local political parties and holding them to the same standard in election spending as national, established parties such as those that hon. Members on the Committee represent, that would start to erode free and fair democratic access to the people who elect us and elect our colleagues in local government across the country. I am uncomfortable with that, although we could have a conversation about the lengths of regulated periods.
We are discussing a new clause that starts a conversation about the regulated period and would create a year’s limit on the amount of literature that can go out, outside of an election period. That seems different from what the hon. Lady is describing, which is the regulations and limits on political parties, and candidates not in a party, during an election period. Those are two very different things. I am quite happy with the fact that I have to raise the money to stand for my seat at a general election, and that national parties have to account for that. The new clause includes provisions not just for general elections but for outside election periods. What I find concerning is that council groups—such as those of the hon. Lady’s party in Eastleigh, or my party’s in Fareham, Hampshire and all across the country—would have to be accountable for putting out communications to people who end up putting councillors in their jobs. I do not think that we should get in the habit of limiting political parties outside an election period, because I think that is an entirely different prospect, and an entirely different area from how we are governed in an election period. I am perfectly okay to start talking about funding levels during an election period, but I do not want to do so for candidates who wish to start a campaign before the current regulatory period. As the hon. Lady will know—she is a very successful politician, both locally and nationally—we do not begin to build an election campaign just in the regulated period. Many of us started trying to get involved in politics a long time before we were elected, and I think that limit is a very dangerous thing in today’s democracy. However, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am open to a conversation about election financing. I am looking at my Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—who is probably horrified by me saying that, but I am not against that argument or discussion. I just think that this goes a bit too far, and it does not sit well with me. After that rambling oratory, I just say to Green and Liberal Democrat Members that, if they choose to push new clauses 10 and 24 to a vote, the Opposition will support them, but we would vote against new clause 27. The Opposition also think that the accountability in new clause 18 is very sensible. If we use AI, we should be honest about it—it is as simple as that. If any politician wants to put forward an AI-generated image, I first think there is a question about why they would want to do so anyway. We all think that our constituencies are beautiful, and we would not want to change them. We also all know that politics is acting for ugly people, so why would we want to change the way we look? I do not understand why someone would want to use an AI-generated image, but if they do, they should actually be big enough and strong enough to own it. Therefore, it is important to have some extra regulation, particularly as some people might not be au fait with AI-generated images, as some are very believable—not the one of Donald Trump pretending to be Jesus, but the more sensible ones. People cannot necessarily pick that up, so if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove chose to push new clause 18 to a vote, the Opposition would also support it.
I am sorry to ask this question, because it is completely and utterly about my ignorance—could the Minister believe it? Is she setting a maximum fine at secondary legislation, or is she removing the maximum fine?
I apologise to the Minister for making her lose her trail. I also am at that stage in the afternoon where things are not going in as well as they probably were this morning. I asked the question because, at the moment, the courts have an unlimited maximum fine. I just got confused about whether the Minister was setting a maximum fine through secondary legislation, which she has now clarified. As we on the Committee are discussing the changes to the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities, which the Minister has been clear about throughout the day, would she give us an indication of what that maximum fine might be? Why is she waiting until secondary legislation to set the level of that fine?
I thank the Minister again for—I am not being facetious—her comprehensive explanation. We have been here for most of the day. These are very complicated issues, and she has been speaking an awful lot because of the importance of this legislation. I do not envy her. I will speak to new clause 41 in my name, to be voted on at another point. We welcome clause 65, but we have some questions on clause 67. As the Minister outlined, clause 65 and schedule 10 decriminalise certain offences in PPERA. They relate to administrative requirements for political parties and others regulated by that legislation and the commission. For example, it is currently an offence for a party treasurer to fail to deliver annual accounts or reports of election expenses to the commission. The provisions will also make the necessary consequential amendments to allow the requirements to come under the commission’s civil sanctioning regime. Clause 66 is a fairly simple clause, which extends the Electoral Commission’s remit to be the primary enforcer of all imprint rules. I would like to pick up on a theme from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which I also brought up earlier: the impact on the Electoral Commission’s ability to do its job properly, in relation to what it currently does compared with what the Government will ask it to do after the legislation passes. The Minister has made it clear that officials are working with representatives of the commission. I know that she works with them as well, and they have not necessarily said that they are unhappy about receiving this new responsibility. However, my general experience from working in the public sector and serving as a local authority councillor is that, in this world of organisations that are often controlled by Treasury spending budgets, or, as the Minister outlined, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, no one says no to extra responsibility if they think they are going to get some more dosh—let us put it that way. Will the commission get enough cash to be able to manage the regulatory burdens that the Government are placing on it? I am beginning to worry that with the plethora of new responsibilities, we will have to see quite a large uplift in the commission’s budgets. I have not heard convincing defences that the Electoral Commission has verbally or formally remarked to the Government that it is content to receive that much responsibility. I am sure that the Minister will come back to talk about that. Clause 67 will increase the maximum fine that the commission could impose in a civil sanction for some summary offences. We have concerns about the size of the proposed increase in Electoral Commission civil sanction fines. The courts already have powers to levy unlimited fines. At the very least, the Macrory principles on proportionate regulatory enforcement should be embedded in law—that is what we aim to achieve in new clause 41. The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement recommends the application of the Macrory principles, including “the use of requests for improvements before resorting to fines and the need to conduct investigations in a timely manner.” The Electoral Commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to national referendums and elections. More serious criminal matters can be—and are—referred to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, and are then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines and criminal sanctions. Unlimited fines are potentially a heavy, significant punishment. That is why it would be appropriate for a judicial check and a fair hearing in a court of law. Indeed, such massive civil fines would likely be challenged via lawyers in the courts anyway, as we have seen with the Information Commissioner and general data protection regulation fines. In relation to the Minister’s opening remarks about setting the level of the Electoral Commission fine at secondary legislation, I am concerned that that is because of, quite frankly, the unpreparedness of the Government. They have put a lot of legislation forward without properly consulting the Electoral Commission and are rushing, as we have said all along in this legislation, to try and legislate without necessarily thinking things through.
I thank the Minister for that; that clarity is welcome. I still question why that needs to be done at secondary legislation. If the Minister knows the maximum fine limit for the Electoral Commission today, she could have put that in the legislation or brought forward an amendment to be discussed in Committee. She has chosen not to do that; I am interested to know why she has chosen not to do that and is waiting for secondary legislation to do so. Perhaps she will come back and tell the Committee why that is the case. My point still stands. The fact that she is looking to set the fine at the secondary legislation stage outlines that, once again, the Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a great number of things that it currently does not do. I am not convinced, unless the Minister can reassure me in writing or come back after this Committee, that the Electoral Commission has been properly consulted. Let us not forget that it was the Electoral Commission that criticised the Government for not consulting it on trying to postpone the elections. That was a process where the Government were found to be unlawful—by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House. I am concerned that, as we have gone through this legislation, a huge amount has been asked of the Electoral Commission in terms of its responsibility and purview, and the Minister has not reassured me that it is happy with that. I am not convinced that the resource that it currently has would allow it to conduct its operations or, if necessary, investigations on its current physical envelope.
I absolutely accept the Minister’s point that it is accountable to Parliament, but her party and her Government have a majority in this Parliament, and her Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a huge amount more. She says that it has been consulted, but all I would say is that, in other areas, it was not consulted when the Government have arbitrarily gone ahead and decided to do what they want to do. The Minister is also correct, and I thank her for her correction, that the Electoral Commission already issues fines. I do not dispute that, but this Government, through schedule 10 and clause 65, are trying to remove some of the fine elements from the judicial system and place more responsibility on the Electoral Commission. That is my concern about the extra responsibility it would have, which has been taken away from the judicial system, as well as some of the other responsibilities that it is being asked to take on, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses.
I agree. I am all in favour of streamlining and making things more efficient, but I am worried that the unintended consequence of essentially removing the judicial oversight element is that the Electoral Commission cannot actually enforce—or, if it does try to enforce, adherence can simply be refused. The Government have done this in another organisation, Natural England, through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. They gave Natural England—an organisation that has limited finances—an enforcement role in legislation, but with no teeth. Therefore, I share my hon. Friend’s concern that this simply will not work. I have said what I have to say on those clauses, and I would like to press new clause 41 to a vote. We will not oppose any of those clauses, but I warn again that we are concerned about the Electoral Commission’s ability to undertake its responsibilities, and I know that the Minister has responded to that.
Order. I am on my feet, so please be seated. “Your letter states”? I do not think I have corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue.
Let us make sure that language is always parliamentary. I call Andy McDonald.