Samantha Dixon
MP for Chester North and Neston · Labour · United Kingdom
“The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the effect of the poor service on our working and personal lives, but there is also an effect on our democracy. As next May’s local elections draw closer, voters will be watching their letterboxes for the arrival of their postal votes.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to Chester Women’s Aid, which continues to campaign hard for victims and survivors of domestic abuse in my constituency. Can the Minister update the House on the roll-out of the new domestic abuse protection orders, which enable support services to apply for a protective order on behalf of a survivor?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On Tuesday, I was pleased to join more than 150 people to celebrate the Chester One City plan, an ongoing project that has underpinned Chester’s redevelopment since 2012.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I really appreciate that. This is another very dark day for the families affected by events at the Countess of Chester hospital—those who grieve, who suffer and who continue to live with the terrible fallout. It is crucial for them, as well as every one of my constituents, and those of my right hon.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and I argued consistently inside Government for the establishment of a national oversight mechanism to capture the recommendations from important public inquiries, such as this one, to ensure that they are carried forward and are never forgotten or overlooked.”
House of Commons15 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing the debate, and for the constructive and consistent way in which she has pursued the issue of embodied carbon in buildings. I know that this is an issue of particular interest to her and to many other Members, including my hon.”
House of Commons13 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
827 held · 577 searchable for Samantha Dixon. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The Bill also creates an equivalent ministerial power to adjust postponed polls that are not UK parliamentary general elections by up to seven days. The provisions will ensure that consistent and appropriate provisions are in place for polls being held in such circumstances. I hope that Members will support the measure. Question put and agreed to . Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 4 agreed to . Clause 53 Form of documents for elections and referendums Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We believe that the 14-day pause in proceedings used for UK parliamentary general elections is the most appropriate arrangement, so the clause extends those provisions to a number of other types of election and referendum, including parliamentary by-elections, scheduled local elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The measures also apply to certain Welsh elections in specific circumstances, when they are combined with UK parliamentary or police and crime commissioner elections. A royal proclamation may already adjust the date of a postponed poll for a UK parliamentary general election by up to seven days. Under the Bill, when such a proclamation is made, any other polls combined with the general election will also move so that they remain combined.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause and schedule 4 ensure that in the event of the demise of the Crown, effective and consistent processes are in place for scheduled local elections and other polls, including mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, as is already the case for a parliamentary general election. In the event of the demise of the Crown, if a UK parliamentary general election is taking place, legislation provides for a 14-day pause in the timetable for the general election to allow time for public mourning and the funeral arrangements, and the date of the poll is moved to after the date of the funeral. Different provisions are in place for other types of polls.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Schedule 5 Form of documents for elections and referendums Amendment made : 18, in schedule 5, page 135, line 5, leave out “and (2)”.— ( Samantha Dixon.) This amendment corrects an error by removing a reference to regulations made under rule 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 from provision about the parliamentary procedure applying to certain regulation-making powers under that Act. Rule 8(2) does not confer power to make regulations. Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 54 Removal of requirement to publish election agents’ addresses Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The sector and stakeholders have been asking for this change, which will allow a relatively small but none the less important consolidation of electoral law. Government amendment 18 is a purely technical change designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. It corrects a minor drafting error relating to the proposed changes to improve how electoral forms are updated. It is a routine correction identified during the drafting process and does not affect the Bill in substance. I commend the amendment, clause 53 and schedule 5 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A good example of that is the recent legislation to add a veteran card to the list of accepted voter ID. That simple addition required an a affirmative instrument to be debated in both Houses to make the change for UK parliamentary elections, a negative instrument replicating the changes for local elections, and a third no-procedure statutory instrument making the same changes to Welsh language forms. That one small change therefore resulted in three instruments and more than 171 pages of legislation. To reduce the unnecessary burden on parliamentary time, the clause makes a number of streamlining changes and amends the powers in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow the forms to be updated far more efficiently.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause, schedule 5 and Government amendment 18 deal with parliamentary processes used to update various forms. A range of prescribed electoral forms are set out in legislation, including poll cards, nomination forms and ballot papers. The rules for each type of poll, be it UK parliamentary, mayoral or local government, are set out in separate pieces of legislation. Each set of rules includes a full set of forms, despite the content of each prescribed form being almost entirely the same from one type of election or referendum to the next, so even a minor amendment to a form results in significant duplication across legislation, which is hugely inefficient. That process is made even more difficult by different parliamentary procedures being required to update the forms in the different pieces of legislation.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation. Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable. Question put and agreed to . Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 55 Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By transferring that function to the commission, the clause will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, support both suppliers and campaigners, and maintain the integrity and transparency of the broader campaign finance framework. Question put and agreed to. Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 56 Delivery and inspection of returns and declarations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To prevent attempts to circumvent spending limits, current rules require campaigners to seek permission from the courts before they are able to pay invoices late. In practice, most late or disputed claims are delayed due to routine administrative issues. The Electoral Commission has said that the court-based process for leave to pay applications is inefficient and costly, delaying prompt payments and placing unnecessary burdens on campaigners, the courts and suppliers, especially small businesses. Clause 55 addresses those inefficiencies by transferring responsibility for granting leave from the courts to the Electoral Commission. The commission will be able to give permission to campaigners to pay late or disputed claims. It is right that such decisions are made by the specialist regulator of political finance.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to clause 57, the Electoral Commission has existing duties to monitor and secure compliance with the expenditure and donations rules set out in PPERA, as well as other enactments promulgating rules concerning candidates or their election agents. To enable it to perform those duties effectively, it also has powers to make regulations relating to information that must be included in donations reports that are required under these pieces of legislation.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That will ensure timely receipt of returns and declarations by the Electoral Commission, which is essential to its ability to perform its new regulatory functions quickly, scrutinise returns and deal with those not complying with the rules. The Electoral Commission will also have new responsibilities for making candidate returns and declarations available for public inspection, promoting transparency by facilitating the collection and publication of data on candidate finance in a single source. Allowing the Electoral Commission to prescribe a form of return that campaigners must use will also help campaigners comply with reporting requirements and facilitate scrutiny of returns.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under current rules, candidates or their election agents must deliver a return and declaration and any accompanying documents relating to their election expenses to the returning officer. To supplement the extension of the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role, clause 56 will require candidates or their election agents also to deliver a copy of the return and declaration and accompanying documents to the Electoral Commission. Those incurring expenditure in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners will likewise be required to deliver copies of relevant returns and declarations to the commission.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most. New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system. In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed. The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing. The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote. New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had “reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting” that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently. We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them. On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood. In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did. Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny. Question put and agreed to. Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 7 agreed to. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 58, page 67, line 38, leave out “, when it” and insert “— (a) the party has not previously undertaken a risk assessment in relation to a relevant benefit accruing to the party in the same calendar year, and (b) when the value of the donation”. This amendment would mean that a risk assessment is required for donations when the £11,180 threshold (for donations or regulated transactions) is breached the first time in a calendar year. (See also amendment 40, which requires a risk assessment the second or subsequent time the threshold is breached.)”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That replaces the previous rolling aggregation threshold, removing unnecessary repetition and ensuring that parties complete a risk assessment only when receiving a further significant donation from the same donor. Risk assessments could be carried out on every donation if a campaigner feels the need to do so.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Government amendment 39 to 41 and 44 to 78 seek to clarify the point at which a political donation exceeds the £11,180 thresholds and requires a risk assessment under the new “know your donor” rules. Currently, the Bill requires a risk assessment once a recipient receives cumulative contributions from the same donor surpassing £11,180 in a calendar year. However, after that point is reached, every further donation received from the same donor in the same calendar year, regardless of value, would require another risk assessment. That was not our policy intention. Under the updated approach, a risk assessment will be required each time a donor gives £11,180 cumulatively or as an individual donation, after which the running total in effect will reset to zero.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause introduces a clear, proportionate due diligence duty on campaigners to look beyond current permissibility checks and determine whether there is a material risk that a political contribution originates from an impermissible source. The new framework strengthens the ability of campaigners to assure themselves that donations come from permissible sources. Its purpose is not to impose unnecessary burdens, but to ensure that campaigners take reasonable, proportionate steps to understand who is behind a donation. By embedding a culture of risk-based due diligence, the clause helps to guard against foreign interference, increases confidence in the integrity of donations, and aligns political finance rules with best practice in other sectors.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will first speak to clause 58, schedule 8, Government new clause 60, and Government amendments 39 to 41 and 44 to 78, before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition. In line with recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission—clause 58 addresses a long-standing gap in electoral law. Current rules require recipients of donations to verify the permissibility of the donor but do not require them to assess whether a donor may be facilitating a donation from an impermissible source. Existing permissibility checks remain important, but they do not always provide sufficient assurance where donations are routed through third parties or where risk indicators are present.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge. I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered. It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment proposed : 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert— “(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links. (2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk. (2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks— (a) the type of person from whom the donation is received, (b) that person’s previous donation history, (c) the type of donation, (d) the amount of the donation, and any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”— (Paul Holmes.) Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have noted the comments by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about a donor registration scheme. None the less, it is beholden on political parties, candidates and campaigners to take seriously the risks from donors. It will be their responsibility, under this legislation, to assess those risks, and if they are found to wilfully, recklessly or knowingly circumvent them, they will be subject to prosecution. We need to move forward with this legislation as much as we can. I sense the frustration from Members across the Committee about the time that will be required to do this, but we need to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and at pace but not too fast. I jest, but we will do it as soon as we possibly can in a way that does not jeopardise scrutiny. Amendment 39 agreed to.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member will appreciate that implementation of the Bill will require substantial secondary legislation. As tempting as it is to set out a timetable, we have to focus on getting the primary legislation through first. There is the tension, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove described, between going at pace to implement measures such as votes at 16 and considering as comprehensively as possible the matters that arise from the Rycroft review. It is a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one, for the Government to do both. Considerable parliamentary time will be devoted to the secondary legislation; that will become clearer as time progresses. We need to move forward as swiftly as we can. We will introduce the amendment regarding crypto when parliamentary time allows, and we will ensure that it has parliamentary scrutiny.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause reduces the risk of impermissible or potentially foreign-linked donations entering the electoral system via routes that are unverifiable. Given the wider context of foreign interference concerns, we believe it is right to take this preventive step. Sixteen and 17-year-olds will still be able to donate like any other eligible voter, enabling early registration while ensuring that the political finance system is safeguarded from impermissible donations as younger voters become active participants in our democracy. I commend clause 59 to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 Donations by companies and LLPs etc”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With the introduction of votes at 16, 14 and 15-year-olds will be able to pre-register as attainers for up to two years before they reach voting age. To safeguard the data of young people, their electoral register data will be subject to enhanced protections. These enhanced safeguards will restrict access to under-16s’ electoral registration data, meaning that political parties and other recipients of political donations will not be able to independently verify whether a 14 or 15-year-old is on the register. Clause 59 closes a potential loophole by prohibiting donations from under-16 attainers, ensuring that the electoral regime remains secure, while still allowing 16 and 17-year-olds, whose details can be verified, to donate like all other voters.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The company must have generated enough income in the previous three calendar years to justify its donation. That will help to prevent shell companies from being used as fronts for foreign money. Additionally, companies must meet strict criteria related to control. They will need to be headquartered in the UK, and the majority of persons with significant control must be UK electors or UK citizens. That will ensure UK electoral control and prevent foreign influence. To prevent companies from being set up solely to make political donations, donors must have at least one up-to-date set of accounts filed with Companies House.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak first to clause 60, before addressing the amendments tabled by hon. Members. Clause 60 directly responds to long-standing concerns about vulnerabilities in the current political finance system and about the risk of illicit foreign money influencing UK democracy. Under the current framework, it is possible for shell companies or companies with weak UK connections to be used to channel money into our political system. The Electoral Commission and many other stakeholders have consistently called for stronger safeguards to ensure that only legitimate entities can donate. The new tests will require companies and limited liability partnerships wishing to donate to registered political parties to meet stricter criteria to show a genuine UK connection.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I will be guided by you, but I do not intend to speak to new clauses 13, 32 and 52 at this stage. However, to respond to a number of points made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire—”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds because they need to communicate their views to the electorate about protecting our democracy better against those who seek to covertly undermine it. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire referenced the Canadian model. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Leader of the House from Canada. While it is tempting to suggest that there should be a ban on corporate donations, I remind the hon. Lady that 60% of their political campaigning is funded by the taxpayer—and it is a brave politician who would enter that particular plea to the British electorate at this time.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the interests of time, I will continue. On the other remarks made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, I hear her point about profit and revenue, and it is highlighted in the Rycroft review. As I said many times this morning, we will carefully consider the Rycroft review and respond to it appropriately. The hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Hazel Grove both highlighted the Government’s view that the responsibility rests with the donor. The Government strongly believe that. The onus is on the person or organisation receiving the donation to consider its origins very carefully. They can and should decline donations if they cannot satisfy themselves that those have come through the proper and legitimate channels. Let me turn to the issue of why we should not ban donations from companies altogether.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member has made her point. The Government believe that there is a place for company donations from UK companies. We just feel that we should be much stricter about the arrangements by which they do these things. We have set that out in the legislation, which is what we are discussing this afternoon. Turning briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, I remind all Members that these measures are not designed to prevent a specific individual or company from donating. Those who follow and meet the three tests and successfully meet the “know your donor” and section 54A requirements should be able to enrich our democracy by donating as they do. I therefore commend clause 60 to the Committee—”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will consider those points. The Rycroft recommendations are being considered very carefully. We will respond to them in due course and we will come back to Parliament with our recommendations as they come forward. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she is seeking.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It reinstates a simple and objective test that supports consistent enforcement and reinforces the integrity of the electoral regime. Campaigners already must take reasonable steps to verify donor permissibility. The clause simply removes the scope for subjective interpretation of permissibility and strengthens deterrence by ensuring that impermissible donations cannot be retained by campaigners due to ambiguity in the law. By reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics, the clause provides a clear deterrent for impermissible donations and supports compliance by political parties and campaigners.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This clause strengthens the electoral regime by restoring a clear, objective test for forfeiture: if an individual donor was not actually on an electoral register at the time of the donation, the donation is impermissible and liable to forfeiture. It responds directly to long-standing concerns from the Electoral Commission that the current framework is open to inconsistency. In particular, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed courts to consider whether a donor was eligible, rather than actually registered, when assessing impermissible donations and their forfeiture, introduced uncertainty and risked discouraging thorough permissibility checks by campaigners. The clause removes the ambiguity in electoral law, ensuring that permissibility of an individual is determined on actual electoral registration.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“UAs will be required to verify political gifts they rely on, and they will be prohibited from using unverifiable or impermissible funds for political activity. I commend clause 62 to the Committee.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause introduces a strengthened framework to ensure that political contributions from unincorporated associations come from permissible sources and are subject to stricter and more consistent transparency requirements. The clause lowers the thresholds at which UAs must register with the Electoral Commission and report the gifts they receive, ensuring that significant contributors provide the same level of transparency as other regulated campaigners. It also extends transparency rules so that contributions to candidates count towards the registration threshold, and it requires UAs to appoint a responsible person, improving clarity about who stands behind such associations. Finally, clause 62 introduces new controls to ensure that funds used for political contributions come from permissible sources.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗