Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you. Harry, do you have anything to add on that? Harry Busz: I would add that, as an organisation, we have collected data on the number of turn-aways at the polling-station level, since the policy of photographic identification came in a few years ago. We tend to find significantly higher numbers of people being turned away at the polling-station level than we see in some of the data that has been collected by the Electoral Commission, primarily because of the different stages at which people can be turned away in the process, whether that is signage, party political tellers who are overextending their role or meeters and greeters. It is an issue because there are particular groups who struggle to either have the ID or to bring the ID with them on the day. From our perspective, looking at different ways to bring in other forms of photo identification, whether that is the digitisation of the voter authority certificate or other forms of digital ID, is welcome. I agree to a large extent with the councillor about reducing the existing level of security when bringing in non-photographic identification.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q I would like to move on to family voting. The recent parliamentary by-election in Gorton and Denton highlighted alleged instances of family voting, which, according to some parties, could have affected the outcome of that election. Democracy Volunteers has raised concerns about the prevalence of family voting, which, for those in the Gallery who do not know, is the practice of accompanying voters into or near polling booths and influencing them to vote in a particular way. There is nothing in the Bill about family voting, but do you believe it should be amended in that regard? Do you or Democracy Volunteers perceive that family voting is a serious enough issue, and such a prevalent issue, that we need legislation to strengthen the security of that element, Harry? Harry Busz: Let me be clear about the data that we have collected. With family voting, we collect instances of somebody’s right to a secret ballot being denied to them because of oversight, direction or collusion inside polling booths. As an organisation, we have collected and published data on that for 10 years now. At the latest general election, we saw it in 116 of the 204 constituencies that we observed in. It is a widespread problem all across the country. Family voting can take different forms. When ballot secrecy is broken, we do not know the relationships between the people who are involved, or whether there is coercive control, so we very much believe that it should not be allowed in any democracy. Everybody’s vote should be theirs and theirs alone. The data that we collected led to the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, which is an important piece of legislation that specifies that trying to influence somebody in the polling booth is an offence. We think that there are ways in which that could go even further. To clarify, oversight should not be allowed. A lot of the legislation is in place. One of the challenges is election administrators on the ground, with the infrastructure they have, being able to prevent that from taking place.

   Hansard source
3. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q It is enforcement rather than legislation. Harry Busz: Yes. For example, the types of polling booths we use here in the UK are a sort of cross-section. The selling points of those polling booths are that they are easy to store and quick to put up, but there is no reference to ballot security, whereas lots of other countries have individual polling booths that can aid staff in preventing family voting before it has started. By the time it has started, it tends to be too late.

   Hansard source
4. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Councillor and Mr Mawrey, do you have anything to say on family voting? I know about your experience in Tower Hamlets, councillor, but I am not sure whether that was a factor. Do you have anything to add? Councillor Golds: My experience goes well beyond Tower Hamlets. I have been an election agent for parliamentary elections in five different London boroughs and in Hertfordshire, and I have been an election agent in seven different London boroughs for local elections. I have campaigned. I have seen this far too often, in far too many places. It crosses communities. Let us be absolutely clear that we are not talking of any individual community here. It is a situation we could possibly call patriarchal, in which groups of men believe they can tell women what to do. In many places, that will include aggressive, angry white men. Let us put that on the record. I have seen it, and I have tried to stop it. When we first got involved in this campaign, Lord Hayward, who I believe is here today, steered the Ballot Secrecy Bill through the House of Lords. That strengthened the protections. When we were campaigning against family voting, some bizarre instructions were going around, including one sent by a former official of the Electoral Commission to the police. I mention this because I shall relate it to Gorton and Denton. The police said: “We have checked with the Electoral Commission and have been informed that just because the voter process was not followed, in terms of secrecy…it might not necessarily relate…to an offence.” Here it comes: “The onus is on the individual who casts their vote to claim that secrecy has been breached or that they have been unduly influenced.” We got the Bill through, and the Act sits there. It is illegal to interfere with somebody. I seriously wonder whether that email is still sitting in an inbox somewhere in a police station or council office.

   Hansard source
5. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   I agree. Richard Mawrey: The problem—which I have found in all the cases I have tried, and not simply those to do with family voting, but almost any electoral offence—is that there is no point in having rules or statutes, however good and however well drafted, if nobody is prepared to enforce them. That was particularly the case in Tower Hamlets, where there were multiple breaches of almost every prohibition in the Representation of the People Act 1983. I have never seen that many different offences, most of which were proved to the hilt. What happened there was that they were drawn to the attention of the Electoral Commission, which said, “No problem there; nothing to look at”, and to the police, who said, “Oh, we’re not interfering”, knowing the type of allegations that would be made against them if they did interfere. Exactly the same happened about 20 years before in Birmingham. The evidence of widespread postal fraud was put in the hands of West Midlands police, and they got a nice little folder, wrote on the outside “Operation Gripe”, put it in a bottom drawer and forgot about it. That was their own evidence in the matter; they were simply unwilling to act. It is not a question of resources. In many cases, the police were presented with what might be termed an oven-ready case, and they said, “Oh, no, we’re not touching this with a bargepole.” I am afraid that is the problem. Another problem, I am sorry to say, is that the Electoral Commission’s view is that electoral fraud is not happening. Indeed, that has been its view since I delivered Birmingham, hence my comment at the time about banana republics. Therefore, there is no impetus for the people who should be enforcing it actually to enforce the law. I would say that, on family voting, or indeed any of the matters that are proposed, the law at the moment is fine but, if you do not enforce it, you might just as well put the thing in a bottom drawer marked “Operation Gripe”.

   Hansard source
6. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you. Quickly and finally, I have tabled new clause 37, which concerns the language of campaign materials. As we have seen in a recent parliamentary by-election, some parties on both the harder left and the harder right have taken to campaigning using leaflets in the short campaign in languages that are not official languages of the United Kingdom. My new clause would essentially mean that, during the short campaign, election literature would have to be in an official language of England, Wales or Scotland—an official UK language. Do you think that is a good thing for democracy? Do you think it is needed, given some of the campaigning tactics we have seen? Or do you not think it would not make a difference in general to some of the problems we have seen in by-elections—but also in local and national elections—in the country? Harry Busz: As an organisation, we do not necessarily have a viewpoint on the issue you are referring to. As well as ballot secrecy and a lot of the other issues that we look at in polling stations, we are very aware of the accessibility of elections and understanding the campaigns going on being important to increasing turnout and getting more people involved in democracy. We do not have a specific policy towards the new clause. Councillor Golds: I have been an agent for many years. Many years ago, in Brent, I remember issuing leaflets in Gujarati. I think that this is something that needs balance. We need to understand—I sent this back to the regulators—that it is one thing to have a leaflet on both sides having, “Do come and vote for party X, my party. I am a great candidate and my party is wonderful”, if what is printed in another language that might be familiar to people also says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful.” However, if in English the leaflet says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful”, but we turn it over and the other language says, “The other people are”—lord knows what—or this, that and everything else, then that is when we get to the problem. In my view, this has to go back to the regulators. I am sorry to say that. In a country such as ours, with a multiplicity of languages, I want people to get involved. In my current borough, the big thing is Sylheti. If people understand Sylheti and we can put stuff out in Sylheti, all well and good, as long as when something is put in Sylheti, it says the same as for an English-speaking voter. If an English-speaking voter says, “I do not understand this”, and someone can turn around to say, “It is exactly the same”, all well and good, but if it is different, we have trouble. Richard Mawrey: It would be perfectly acceptable if there were some sort of insistence, as Peter Golds says, for the texts to be comparable, but that is unfortunately not the case—or certainly was not the case in Tower Hamlets, as I discovered. Quite anodyne stuff in English—“Vote for me. I am a good chap”—came out much longer in Sylheti, couched in really quite extreme religious terms. The two sides of the document did not match. It would clearly be desirable for the two sides of the document to match, so that, in a sense, you could monitor it, particularly if the one that was in a non-English language contained material that ought not to be there in the first place. That can occur, not simply with Asian languages, but with all other languages. You could say something that, you hope, no one outside your language group will understand. It is essential, I think, to monitor that so there is some equality between the obverse and reverse of the same coin.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   I appreciate that. We will go away to look at how that new clause can be tailored to your feedback, all three of you. The new clause came out of some of the campaigning in the Gorton by-election, so we will go away and look at it again.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Good afternoon and thank you for being here. My question is very brief because of the narrow scope of what you are answering questions on. Do you think that the Bill explicitly needs to take account of donations through cryptocurrency and how do you think that could best be achieved? What do you say to a number of colleagues in this House who, through principled aims, think that cryptocurrency donations should be banned? Alexander Browder: You cannot have crypto donations without a proper regulatory framework, and there is not going to be a whole regulatory framework for all of cryptocurrency until at least late 2027. You cannot have the wild west of cryptocurrency without proper guardrails. You need to be able to establish that those guardrails are effective in stopping foreign and criminal interference in our elections. If cryptocurrency is deemed to be permissible, we need, firstly, to be able to disclose the wallet addresses of the political donations. There should not be any limit to the reporting requirements for cryptocurrency donations; at present, it is above £500. All cryptocurrency should be stored in institutions that are registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission needs more power to be able to investigate cryptocurrency donations. At present, they cannot access cryptocurrency wallets or investigate cryptocurrency exchanges, which leaves a whole gap open to foreign interference.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

   Q Thank you for that very thorough answer. The Bill makes provisions for a number of risk factors to be taken into account when conducting enhanced due diligence checks on donations. Do you think that they are sufficient as outlined in the legislation? Alexander Browder: Bad actors are continually evolving, and within cryptocurrency there are a number of different tactics that they use to conceal their funds. One that is particularly relevant to this issue is something called smurfing. That is where donations are split across cryptocurrency wallets to stay under the £500 reporting threshold. There is also something called a mixer, which allows a user to send funds in and receive a whole different address. That means it is impossible to trace for an investigator who wants to try and see if a criminal has donated. At present, the Electoral Commission does not have any power to investigate. Political parties are not proper investigative bodies and do not have the skills to investigate this complex situation. More power needs to be established for this.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Welcome to all our witnesses—virtual and in person—this afternoon. The Government have always been clear, and have said in the House, that any instance of ineligible people being able to vote is unacceptable. However, does the current system for overseas voting ensure that eligible voters are able to have their votes counted? Do you agree with my assertion—if not, that is absolutely fine; many people don’t—that the Government have not concentrated on making it easier in this legislation for overseas voters to vote, and that that is a missed opportunity? Colin Blackwell: Thank you, Paul. The simple answer is no, it does not. A survey about voter participation among overseas electors in the OECD has shown that the UK is a significant statistical outlier, with the lowest effective participation rate. Only around 1.3% of the more than 5 million people in that potential electorate are thought to have successfully cast a ballot at the last UK election. This Bill, of course, does not overtly address overseas electors, but one of its objectives is to increase voter participation. In line with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, Conservatives Abroad believes that technological advances now make it possible for a secure and verifiable online facility to be introduced to allow overseas electors to download and self-print their ballot paper and return envelope for one-way return posting. New Zealand and Singapore are two English-speaking Westminster democracies that have implemented downloadable ballot papers, and they use a biometric identification app to verify overseas electors downloading ballot papers against the voter registration ID credentials that were provided at the time of voter registration. Unlike at the time of the Elections Act 2022, when Conservatives Abroad first recommended this approach, the UK now has this technology. In the last few weeks, we have seen the launch of the Government Digital Service’s One Login app for gov.uk services, and it is now available. That was previously not a technological possibility, but now it absolutely is. New Zealand and Singapore are the gold standards for downloadable ballots for their diaspora.

    Hansard source
11. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Thank you. You anticipated my next question to you, Colin, so you have killed two birds with one stone. I will go to Imogen and Richard on the general point about the legislation, but first I will ask whether you agree with the proposal to allow downloadable ballot papers. Would that make the system easier? Imogen Tyreman: In the proposal itself, there are some elements that will help overseas voters to get on the register and exercise their vote and that go further than the current situation, such as the extension of the postal vote and requiring earlier registration. There are also things such as automatic registration, looking at passports and some of the pilot projects. However, I think that more can still be done, particularly on postal votes. That is often what people use, because there is not really enough information about proxy voting, and electoral registration officers do not know how it can operate. That feels like a barrier. To take the example of postal voting, there is a return rate of 70% or so if ballots are sent out early. But of the postal ballots that were sent out later during the last election—around 27 June—only 2% were returned. Looking at specific countries, there was only a 6% return rate for Australia. There was a higher return rate for France, at 75%. In Spain, which is also a European country, only 32% of ballots were returned. Royal Mail itself has said that it takes six to seven days for standard letters to reach the rest of the world, so if the postal vote deadline is 14 days, I do not know how we are expecting ballots to reach voters and get returned in time. For us, having downloadable ballots is one option, as well as looking at the potential for online voting, and at the use of embassies and consulates as voting hubs or places where we can return ballots. They could potentially go back by diplomatic mail, which is much quicker.

    Hansard source
12. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q This is not a challenge but an observation about your answer, for which I thank you. You have outlined some possible solutions. The British Overseas Voters Forum propose solutions such as ensuring that postal ballot papers are downloaded and securely posted via embassies and consulates. That is done in the Netherlands, but the forum did not recommend electronic voting, which would be insecure. Is that your understanding of its response to the possible solutions? Imogen Tyreman: Yes.

    Hansard source
13. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    I was just checking—I was not trying to catch you out. Richard Williams: Perhaps I can just add to that last point while it is top of mind. Something that came up in discussions among members of Labour International was what could be viable alternatives to the current system. Of course, we are not the first country to talk about electronic voting. Other European nations have successfully introduced electronic voting, with Estonia probably being the best example. In its last election, over 51% of votes were cast via an electronic system. A number of measures are built into that system to avoid things like voting coercion, whereby multiple votes can be cast and only the very last one is actually counted, and physical voting always takes precedence when both electronic votes and physical votes are received. Having said that, to come back to the original point on whether Britons abroad are adequately addressed as a voter group, I think the numbers that Colin rightly spoke about are telling. Of the 5 million Britons living abroad, only just under 200,000 are on the electoral register, which speaks for itself. There are really three main reasons for that. One, beyond looking at processes, is simply awareness: many Britons are not aware that they have the right to vote if they are not living in the country. There is no proactive communication on the side of the Government. It is very much left to the individual themselves to find out what their rights are and then to go through the process of contacting the local authority where they used to live in the UK—I did it in Ashford, Mr Joseph’s constituency. It is relatively easy, but there is then the additional process of having to register for a postal vote, which happens afterwards. Those things are all addressed in the Bill, and I think there are some improvements there, but the awareness is the first hurdle. Then there are the processes themselves. And the third point, in some cases, is probably apathy: if you do not have an MP representing your interests as somebody living abroad, you do not care about the potholes in the local high street as much.

    Hansard source
14. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q You issue a fair challenge where apathy and not understanding the process for voters are an issue, but there is also the fact that we in this House rarely have overseas constituents get in touch. [Interruption.] Maybe I am lucky. I had one two months ago, and my team, who are very good, did not quite understand what they were and were not allowed to do, because the constituent was not physically in the constituency. I think the House has a duty to improve knowledge about MPs representing those people, and I learned a solid lesson. Jenny and Tom, shall we come to you on the first question? Jenny Shorten: We don’t disagree with any of what has been said, but I will pick up on a couple of points. On the last point you made, about contact with MPs, I conducted a survey across all parties to look into exactly that. The answer to the question, “Do overseas voters think they are represented?” is no, because things like the automated replies say, “I can only help you if you live in the constituency.” It is no wonder they feel invisible, and that is a word that has regularly cropped up in our surveys with people who get in touch with us; they say, “I feel like I’m not there and not being taken notice of.” The other thing I wanted to direct our thinking towards is whether the processes and systems set us up to fail or to succeed. As a former election agent, I would say that the election timetable is not fit for purpose; it does not make sense. It went wrong for UK electors last time round, but particularly for those overseas. As I think Imogen remarked, you cannot get it done. With the current options, you have to wait until 19 days before polling day to know who the candidates are, so that is the earliest you can prepare ballot papers. People can still register up to 11 working days before. It is not going to work, however hard and however assiduously the people who administer it actually try. On behalf of all of us, I think, I would like to say thank you to the Electoral Commission for finally collating the figures on how many postal votes got back in time; it is the first time we have seen them. I am sure the Committee is shocked by the fact that it is less than half. We need to look at the process, but it is also a significant matter of culture.

    Hansard source
15. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Tom, don’t feel like you have to answer if you do not want to. I want your own parties to be able to scrutinise you and ask you questions as well. If you do want to answer, please do, but I want to allow your colleagues to ask you questions. Tom McAdam: I would just like to touch on the opportunity here. When we look at France, at the last legislative elections, it had a 37% turnout of overseas citizens. We can compare that with the turnout of British citizens overseas at the last general election, which was 5%. There is a huge opportunity. It is not one measure that will help that, but a package of measures. The apathy point is really important. Without a dedicated overseas Member of Parliament talking about the interests of overseas citizens, it is easy to feel that we do not have representation in Parliament. Given the problems with actual voting, people do not feel incentivised to attempt to vote. I do not think that any one measure will really move the needle but, if we take everything as a whole, we might be able to move towards the numbers seen in France.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    If the Minister decides to make me the MP for overseas voters, I am more than happy to do surgeries across the world.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Good afternoon, both of you, and welcome to the Committee. I enjoyed reading both your submissions to the Committee. It really interested me that there is clearly a desire, from both your organisations, to reduce the amount of threats and harms to active participants in the political process, and to come up with tangible examples of where you want to try to tackle the electoral system, particularly where we are—a bit like with computers—speeding ahead in technological advancement but the system is creaking in trying to catch up with it. I want to explore two areas quickly and then hand over to the Minister. Clearly, in the election strategy announced before Christmas, the Government said that our “democracy is being threatened by misinformation”. Both your organisations have come up with fairly similar recommendations, including, in the Demos report on electoral online harms, the recommendation for a political digital repository. I think that is quite a good idea. Can you outline to the Committee, on behalf of your organisations, where you think that the Bill is deficient in tackling such threats, particularly those from digital communications? Azzurra Moores: I should clarify that our recommendations are so similar because Demos, Full Fact and other civil society partners have been working together.

    Hansard source
18. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    I would never have guessed. Azzurra Moores: We are working together partly because there is a real feeling among civil society that the Bill is much too narrow in scope and does not go far enough to tackle some of the major threats to elections that we are seeing. Part of the reason we came together is the quote that you referenced, Paul: the Prime Minister himself said that misinformation is a huge problem, and actually we are seeing such threats to elections. We have come together to think about some of the recommendations. We have come up with a number of recommendations on a range of issues, including online harassment of candidates, given that the Bill focuses a lot on in-person harassment of candidates. We have also looked at deepfakes, and at how digital advertising needs to be modernised. We really feel that the Bill is, at the moment, a bit of a missed opportunity to tackle something that is—this is the consensus among civil society—a huge threat to democracy. If we do not tackle some of these issues now, we do not know when we are going to tackle them to prepare ourselves for the next election. We were quite lucky in the last election that we did not see major threats to democracy or huge amounts of interference. But we have seen examples globally, including across Europe and in Canada, and we have seen examples outside election periods. We feel that that is why the Bill needs to be amended to provide for some of the bigger threats that elections face. Chris Morris: To back that up, part of our fear is that a lot of what is in the Bill has been locked in for so long that these really important aspects of misinformation and disinformation are missing. As you suggested, we are in a situation where technology is moving at warp speed. We recognise that legislating at a fixed point when the technology is moving so quickly is not easy, yet the Bill falls significantly short of its original aims, which included restoring trust and strengthening the integrity of our democracy. If you are going to hold an election, the information environment in which it is held is absolutely central to the public perception—I think I am going to use the word “transparency” a lot during this session—that the system is working in their favour and can be trusted. People are sceptical—we like scepticism; scepticism is good. The danger is that it tips over into outright cynicism. The more transparent the measures in the Bill can be, and the clearer it is that people understand they can trust the system—and that they can trust that political parties and candidates, when standing for office, are held to high standards—the better it will be. The concern is that the technology is outweighing the ability of Committees like this one and legislation like this Bill to do the job they set out to do.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I do not think you are the only one sitting around the table today who considers the Bill a missed opportunity, particularly when it comes to catching up on digital harms and the scrutiny that all of us as local or national politicians should be under when it comes to digital campaigning. These quotes are from your briefing, Chris, if I may plagiarise and read them out. A former Minister said that more needs to be done to deal with hostile actors. My boss, James Cleverly, has said that the Conservatives would support “sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 635.] Zöe Franklin, who serves on this Committee, said that section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 needs to be updated to “explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 651.] Your briefing also mentions what Martin Wrigley and Alex Barros-Curtis said. Emily Darlington, with her two excellent amendments, has tried to tackle this issue. What interactions have you both had with officials in the Department to see how far you can get in probing and trying to get these issues included in the Bill in the first place? What would you say to the Committee about Emily Darlington’s new clauses 22 and 24? Chris Morris: Overall, both our organisations are talking to officials all the time, so the doors are open, which is good. Part of the problem with the debate about deepfakes is that, in my opinion, some people want to go too far. It is worth exploring the idea of criminalising deepfakes as essentially identity theft, but I would have a lot of caution around that. It is good to explore those policy options, but we are much more in favour of transparency of labelling. We have suggested an amendment that is very specific about the way that political deepfakes can be labelled. If you go down the road of criminalisation, you come to a very difficult line about where satire suddenly becomes criminal. Nobody wants to factcheck satire, and nobody wants to make satire illegal. Again, we have to start looking at some of these things in a slightly different way to take account of the way that technology has made it incredibly easy for anyone to create new information just like that. That is the world in which we are living. Trying to criminalise some of those things would be a dangerous path to go down, but clear labelling—transparency of source—is absolutely key. Azzurra Moores: I would echo Chris’s point. We are incredibly grateful to the officials we have spent many months talking to. They have been incredibly constructive and open to hearing these recommendations. We are sitting in front of you because all those recommendations have not made it into the Bill. Part of the reason Emily has put forward so many amendments is because these issues deserve to be debated by parliamentarians, but they also deserve to be debated by the people they are impacting. A lot of the things we are looking at here will impact every Member around this table, and it is for you to decide how you tackle them. You have mentioned a couple of Emily Darlington’s amendments, and I want to turn to new clause 10. You mentioned section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I thought it might be worth clarifying that, while this measure is something she has put forward, with Demos and Full Fact support, it is actually a recommendation that came long before. It came out of the Speaker’s Conference, which I know many members of the Committee were part of, and it is something to which the Government have now responded by saying, “We understand that this is important.” New clause 10, if anything, is just a vehicle for the Government to action something they have already said could be really valuable. It would not create new law or new bounds to discuss free speech; all it would do is say that deepfakes exist as a medium through which you must not make false statements about another candidate. It is a very simple amendment that asks the Government to publish legal guidance, so that there is no uncertainty among officials, regulators or the police. It is quite a simple approach, and that is what we have felt is the most important way forward. These things have been discussed for a long time, and the amendments are allowing them to be discussed within the scope of the Bill.

    Hansard source
20. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I notice that quite a considerable number of Labour Members have signed new clause 10, so let’s hope that when we get to Report, they put their money where their mouths are and vote for it, if it is selected. Very quickly, as I know other people want to ask questions, I can see why people would want to support new clause 24’s repository of digital political advertising. One of the drawbacks that I think we can see in the new clause, which I want to strengthen, is that the Electoral Commission obviously will have responsibility for establishing a repository of paid-for digital political advertising within the 72-hour window. Where do you both think is the ideal location for that repository? Where would it sit? Would it sit with a Government Department or in a Government agency? Who would be the regulator, and who would be the manager and data controller of that repository? Do you have a preference for how that might be legislated for, such as in a new amendment? Azzurra Moores: Our original preference was for this to sit with Ofcom. To be frank with the Committee, when this amendment was tabled, there was pushback on including any new powers for Ofcom in the Bill. At the moment, new clause 24 puts those powers on the Electoral Commission, and I personally do not mind who holds that power. I do not think it particularly matters, and it is really for Members to decide themselves. What matters are the principles that we are trying to discuss here. We want to give voters the ability to verify whether a political ad is real, and we want to allow them to do that in real time. We have given scope for 72 hours, but we would obviously hope that it would be sooner. We also want those adverts to be transferred to the National Archives so that, in years to come, we understand how elections were fought. Who holds or pays for that? I think that is really a matter for the Committee. We can discuss in detail whether it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, but I think we need to make sure that we agree on the principle that elections are no longer fought just in person; they are fought online, and we therefore need really stringent measures to understand how elections were fought in years to come. Chris Morris: But I would argue that it should not be a Government Department, which you suggested as a possibility. I think it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, and I think the Electoral Commission would be happy to take on that responsibility. Again, it comes back to the issue of transparency, as people deserve to be able to see what is there. It is important not only for researchers but for ordinary voters, because they are bombarded from so many angles with advertising of various kinds. Creating a repository would be a big democratic step forward.

    Hansard source
21. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    I would be one of the people sad enough to go to the National Archives to look at them, so I am fully in favour of it. Azzurra Moores: Me too. Chris Morris: See you there.

    Hansard source
22. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Thank you for coming this afternoon. Welcome back, Duncan, to these hallowed halls; it has gone downhill since you were last here. I have taken great pleasure in reading all the evidence that has come in today. There are some bits I agree with—particularly from Dr Hawley and Dr Power—but there are some recommendations that I would be concerned about if we started to implement. Sorry, Mr Hames, but I am going to focus on the other two witnesses first. First, where do you see the balance between the freedom to practise democracy and overburdensome restrictions that could harm transparency and restrict voter interaction with the party political process? We have heard this morning that there is a perception that overseas voters are finding it incredibly hard to engage with voting and have many obstacles to voting. You have a proposal that any overseas voter wishing to be considered a permissible donor should also be a UK-registered taxpayer and have submitted at least one non-zero tax return in the two years prior to making the donation. Does that not risk creating two tiers of voter—well, we already have that, but exacerbating it? For example, someone in receipt of benefits or who falls underneath the tax threshold in this country is allowed to vote. Why should they be allowed to vote, if an overseas voter who does not pay tax should not be allowed to vote? That is to Dr Power, then I will come back with another question. Dr Power: There is a two-tier system, effectively, if you have overseas voters and overseas taxpayers, and UK-based taxpayers. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction between where the level of threat is and where the level of overburdensome regulation is, if you will. I sometimes get concerned when I hear about how this approach can be overly burdensome. It is often used as a crutch to prevent genuine weaknesses in the system being dealt with. I do not think it is too much to ask of people who live overseas, who might well be slightly more politically exposed, to show that they are also engaging with the British system and paying tax in that respect. I do not necessarily have concerns that that creates a two-tier system—people are allowed to donate in the UK, of course, and people are allowed to donate overseas. Of course, if they lived overseas and did not pay tax, they could donate under the £500 limit.

    Hansard source
23. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q On the original question about the balance between overburdensome regulation and the ability to interact with the electoral process, Dr Hawley, in your evidence, at paragraph 9, “Campaign spending limits on an annual basis”, you state: “Parties are increasingly building up their war chests well before the run-up to elections and engaging in permanent campaigning. This can have an impact on subsequent elections; as the Committee for Standards on Public Life…noted in its 2021 report”. It is always going to be the case that political parties have to fundraise to communicate with the electorate. Where is the balance? What I could not quite work out from that submission is where you see the balance between restricting fundraising and keeping communications with the electorate going over that 18 months, rather than seeing it as campaigning? I might not be clear, but I am trying to see where you see that balance coming through. Dr Susan Hawley: This is not about stopping it; it is about having limits apply across the annual period. An amendment that relates to the digital campaigning side has already been tabled. That is a recognition that we are in an age of permanent campaigning and to make sure that the public know what is being spent to influence them. It is about transparency and fairness, because if some parties are able to keep a lot of money in those pre-regulated periods and others are not, an imbalance is created when it comes to the election. It is about transparency and fairness.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I want to ask all three witnesses about one other area, very briefly. A recommendation in your evidence, Dr Hawley, is that we: “Prohibit crypto donations until/unless…crypto currency becomes much more widely used by a greater cross-section of the population”. That is something that needs to be seriously explored, because of evidence given to us earlier in Committee about the lack of regulation that has caught up with something that is to me completely not understandable. You support that proposal, Dr Hawley, because it is your proposal, but do the other two witnesses support an interim ban on cryptocurrency donations until the regulatory framework has caught up? Also, if we get a suitable regulatory framework, do you think such donations should be re-established or do you think that they should just be banned permanently? Duncan Hames: We do support a moratorium for the purposes you describe. How temporary it should be depends on whether it is possible to address the risks. At such point as Parliament is confident that other forms of payment carry no additional risk to sterling or even cash, then the case for the moratorium would not be as strong. Right now, it is an absolute minefield to try to work out exactly where this money originates, which drives a coach and horses through the existing rules we have on political finance.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Thank you. Dr Power? Dr Power: We are short on time, so I will say yes, and you can refer to my evidence. The only thing I would add is that one of the concerns we have about crypto-currency generally is its ability to supercharge donations below £500, which is underneath the check for permissibility. If that is a particular concern with cryptocurrency, there is a case for not only banning it, but bringing down the level of the permissibility requirement. In my submission, I suggest £50, which aligns with the candidate regime, because that would create a further barrier to that particular concern.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Thank you, and thank you for the work you have been doing.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Minister, thank you; I know that you have had as long a day as the rest of us. I will ask you just a few questions, and the Opposition then wish to adjourn until we meet for line-by-line scrutiny. I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you, based on the evidence that we have heard today. Part of my concern about this Government’s approach to legislation is that we very often see a jumping to legislate before the evidence is there, and then a backtracking on a number of things. For example, we had a planning and infrastructure Bill being implemented before a devolution Bill, and that devolution Bill cancelled elections to enable things to be delivered, but the elections were then forced back on. It seems that this Government do not think through public policy properly, and I think the Bill is no exception. It seems odd to me that the Government asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review into election interference, but they have then introduced a Bill that is bringing forward a number of measures in the same field. As a result, the Bill may go through the vast majority of its parliamentary stages and then rely on secondary legislation, which is a concern that many professors outlined earlier. Have you made any representations to other Ministers in the Department or to No. 10 for a delay in this legislation, so that the Rycroft review can report and develop recommendations? You could then come back to the House and form a cross-party Committee to see whether those recommendations can be implemented, rather than following this hotchpotch approach that will see the Bill passed, only for a review to then make a number of recommendations on the same subject matter. Does that not seem odd to you? Samantha Dixon: Last July, the statement of policy was set out in Parliament, so there was quite a considerable amount of time before the introduction of the Bill. You have seen policy developing over that time. The conviction of Nathan Gill, which is why the Secretary of State asked Philip Rycroft to undertake the review, was a pivotal moment that highlighted and brought together a number of the issues that the witnesses have talked about today. The Secretary of State set the terms of reference for that review very carefully, but I think that Philip Rycroft indicated that he would act with speed. While I have not met him to date, I know that many people have, including members of this Committee, because his door has been very open to those who want to talk to him. I anticipate that his recommendations will come forward soon, and it is the Government’s intention to listen closely and carefully to what he brings forward. The Bill, as you will know from Second Reading, is a carry-over Bill, which gives us an opportunity, as we go forward, to consider the recommendations. It is likely that our Committee will finish around the time that we are prorogued, and that Report will come in the second Session of this Parliament. That pause is being provided to us by parliamentary time.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I place on the record that I have absolutely no doubt about the Minister’s personal integrity when it comes to making sure that this legislation does the best it possibly can. But it seems unfair and unusual that as we sit on this Committee and as a review goes ahead that was asked for by the Secretary of State—off the back of the conviction of Nathan Gill, quite rightly—the parliamentary mechanisms by which we would want to strengthen that Bill on a cross-party basis could be over. The Government will be bringing forward large-scale amendments on one of its own Bills at a stage where the scrutiny by Members from across the House will not be happening as it should. I understand, Minister, but I think that it is odd—although not unusual from this Government. I have one more question, which is about digital ID. Since this Government were elected, fairly and resoundingly, it has been clear that they have a problem with the previous Government’s measures on digital ID. Almost every witness today has outlined that the Government’s proposals on bank cards as a potential form of ID are not a good idea; they said that that would not increase security at polling stations or people’s security over their vote, but actually reduce it. Will you listen to those witnesses and give a commitment to the Committee to go back to the Department and remove bank cards as an acceptable form of ID? Can you outline to the Committee how showing a card with a name on guarantees that the person who is turning up at the polling station is the named person, and how that is fundamentally different to the old system, where a polling card could be taken to a polling station and a vote be given out? Samantha Dixon: I think that the integrity of the UK banking system is such that the possession of a bank card requires a degree of ID that is necessary and appropriate. We have to remember that prior to the 2022 Act, there was no ID requirement at all. We have also heard evidence that instances of fraud were extremely low. The introduction of the bank card ID is important because it is widely held by the population, in particular by under-represented groups including 16 and 17-year-olds. I have heard the evidence that the Committee has heard; none the less, I think the inclusion of UK-issued bank cards is an important addition to voter ID, and one that we should continue.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q What problem are you trying to solve, Minister? It is certainly my contention—you may disagree with this—that most people in this country will have a passport, driving licence or a form of photographic ID, and if you are a student at college, you will have a college ID. One of the witnesses today suggested that you could have automatic enrolment to voter identification paperwork or digital ID; that is something we would support. What problem are you trying to solve in trying to bring in a bank card as a possible type of identification, when that does not prove your identity? A very minor number of people are affected by this. How much do you anticipate that a bank card will make a difference to the numbers we have heard about today? Samantha Dixon: We are talking about people who have the right to vote, but are excluded from voting because they do not have the appropriate ID. Although I accept that many people have passports and driving licences, not all do, and many more people have bank cards. The legitimacy of the banking system in the UK means that those cards should be used by younger people in particular, but could be used by any person who wants to vote in person at a polling station.

    Hansard source
30. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

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

    Hansard source
31. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Points of Order

    Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the rulings that you have made from the Chair, which I think are always perfect and completely right, we are now entering a new period in which a Prime Minister answers a question about a subject that was not asked and then focuses on asking a question of the Opposition Front Bench. Notwithstanding the ruling that you have just made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), can you tell me what parliamentary mechanisms there are and who I can approach to see whether the Standing Orders need to be reformed to give you the power to determine what is an answer to a question and what is a completely pathetic response?

    Hansard source
32. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    In January, the Chancellor was saying that the student loans system was “fair and reasonable”. She now admits —as of yesterday—that it is broken. In one sense, we have won this debate even before it started. The Government say that they are looking at these issues, but they would not be looking at them if it were not for the Opposition raising them, and I do not find the promise to “look at these issues” very reassuring, given their track record. In the run-up to the last election, the Education Secretary promised: “Graduates, you will pay less under Labour”. Unbelievably, that is still up on her website. Instead, Labour has increased fees so that graduates are paying more, not less. On top of that, the Chancellor has cut the repayment threshold in real terms so that graduates are paying a further £250 a year. Actions speak louder than words. To get elected as Labour leader, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. Instead, he has increased them. He used to say, “We need to end the scandal of spiralling student debt,” but now he is letting it spiral. When the Minister says, “We will look at it,” we are not reassured. I thought the best speech of the afternoon was from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), who said in plain terms that he would not prioritise fixing this problem and would spend the money on something else. That kind of blunt honesty is better than the line from the Chancellor, who says “Graduates, your call is very important to us. Please continue to hold, and eventually perhaps we will do something about it.” This system was set up with the best of intentions, but I have been arguing against it for as long as I have been in this House. The above-inflation interest rates have long been recognised as a problem. That is why our 2022 reforms abolished real-terms interest rates for all future students, but now we need to go back and end these unfair challenges for past students too. There are lots of different ways to explain how unfair the current system is. Those on plan 2 are paying back far more than they ever borrowed. The typical plan 2 graduate needs to earn £66,000 a year just to keep track with the interest. The total volume of money owed by plan 2 students is increasing every year, even though no new loans are being taken out and they are paying back billions every year. Between the lower and upper interest rate threshold, for every additional £100 a graduate earns, they repay an extra £9, but their debt also accrues an additional £7.20 in interest. In fact, a plan 2 graduate who has £69,000 or more of debt—a doctor or someone like that—sees their debt increase faster as their earnings and repayments increase, because the interest effect outweighs the repayment effect. It is a totally perverse system.

    Hansard source
33. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    Yes, and I am grateful for that question. Under our proposed reforms, four fifths—80%—of plan 2 graduates would benefit and pay less over their lifetime. The hon. Gentleman can look up all this stuff on the IFS website if he wants to check. There are so many personal stories here. The other day, one doctor was recounting how she graduated with £75,000 of debt, has worked hard for years and has paid off every year, but she now owes £90,000.

    Hansard source
34. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me why he thinks that is fair.

    Hansard source
35. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    If the hon. Gentleman reads to the end of the IFS report, he will see that it costs our proposal in single-digit billions, and we have explained exactly how we will pay for it—I will come to that in a moment—so there is no gaping hole whatsoever. No wonder so many despair, with more broken promises from the Government and ever-rising debt, and no promise of action at any particular time. How we would pay for our proposal—this goes to the hon. Gentleman’s question—is equally important. Since the last Government created the longitudinal education outcomes dataset, we have had much better data on which degrees do—or do not—provide economic value for students and taxpayers. Economic value is not the only value put on higher education, or any kind of education, but rather than simply pushing more young people towards courses that the Government’s own data show us do not benefit them—they do not help them, and they leave them feeling like they have been mis-sold and betrayed, with a lot of debt and nothing much to show for it—we need to have a rethink. The current approach is not working. Since the election, youth unemployment has risen to levels significantly above the eurozone’s for the first time in a generation. That is mainly as a result of the Government’s decision to target lower-paid people for tax increases and to increase regulation, but it is not helped by the Government’s unbalanced approach to skills, based on an endless expansion of university courses whether they are any good or not.

    Hansard source
36. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    Just one moment. Analysis by the IFS found that total returns on going to university will be negative for about 30% of both men and women—and that is based on the cohort from the noughties. The problem now is probably even bigger because the graduate premium has declined further. As a result, many graduates now earn so little that they will never fully repay their student loans, leaving the taxpayer to cover about £8 billion in losses every year. That is why we would restore the number controls that existed for 70 years and use that to reduce the number of people who are on courses that are not good value for the taxpayer and not helping the young people, either. To listen to Labour Members, anyone would think that there was not a single bad course, that every single course is totally brilliant and that there is no prospect of ever reducing spending on any single course. That is a fantasy world. We do not say about any other type of public service that every single instance of it is completely brilliant and there is no scope for improvement. We would use the savings from our proposal not just to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans but to double the number of apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds so that quality apprenticeships are a real choice at age 18. Why would we do that? Recent data shows that five years after finishing a course in 2018, the average level 4 apprentice was earning £32,000; by contrast, the average graduate was earning just £26,500 and the lower quartile of graduates were earning £19,000 or less. In many cases, a high-quality apprenticeship can be a better option than a low-value university course. That is why we would make that change.

    Hansard source
37. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Student Loans

    We have already talked about that. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list, he can go on my Substack and see a whole bunch of different institutions with low returns. He can also do better than that: he can look on the DFE’s website and see that many courses lead to low earnings. [Interruption.] It is not my purpose here to single out individual courses. We have talked quite a lot about creative arts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that only 4.5% of those degrees represent a positive return to taxpayers. Some people will look at a statistic like that, say that it is only worth it for taxpayers 4% of the time and say, “That is not a problem. Let’s carry on shovelling money into something that is only working 4% of the time.” Other people would say, “We have to make choices, and we could use that money, which the Government continue to shovel into low-value courses, to fund more high-quality apprenticeships and cut repayments for betrayed plan 2 voters.” Let me be clear: the current system is unfair. The Government admit it is unfair. Like so many other things, they say they will look at it. This is a Prime Minister who we can always rely on to do the right thing once we have dragged him by the nose to do it. As the former Deputy Prime Minister says, time is running out for this Labour Government, and it is time for them to stop moaning, grow a pair and fix this problem that they have moaned about.

    Hansard source
38. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Fuel Duty

    Well, it was clear that the Minister was not giving way. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Fuel Duty

    Order. Start again.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Fuel Duty

    Order. If multiple Members are seeking to intervene, please indicate whose intervention you are taking. It makes it easier for the Chair to know whose name to call.

    Hansard source