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 6 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.
“I will speak now to clause 62 and Government amendments 79 to 87, which were tabled in my name. I will come to the other amendments later. The clause introduces measures that have long been called for by the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to tighten the rules around unincorporated associations. Under the current framework, unincorporated associations are permitted to make political contributions provided their main office and activities are based in the UK, but there are no restrictions on the sources of the funds behind those contributions. Existing rules therefore do not provide sufficient transparency or assurance about who is ultimately funding the political contributions made through such bodies.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to clause 64, it is important that campaigners have access to clear and up-to-date guidelines. The Electoral Commission’s guidance on digital imprints plays an important role in helping campaigners to understand and comply with the rules and supports enforcement authorities in maintaining transparency and public trust in UK democratic processes.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 63 strengthens the transparency of digital imprint rules by ensuring that third-party campaigning groups spending under a certain threshold are also required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. This requirement will ensure that the rules promote transparency and public trust, while protecting free expression and avoiding undue burdens on individuals simply expressing their political opinions online. Following consultation with the Scottish Government, it was agreed that applying a single UK-wide regime uniformly will enable voters from across the UK to benefit from a level of transparency and will avoid confusion. The clause therefore also repeals part 8 of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 consequentially upon the extension of the UK-wide digital imprint regime.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any campaigner wishing to influence the electorate should be prepared to be transparent. Imprint rules play an important role in upholding trust in UK democratic processes by ensuring that voters can see clearly who is behind political campaigning material. Under existing rules, third-party campaigners who spend under a certain threshold are not required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. That creates a loophole allows third-party campaigning groups to disseminate potentially influential content without disclosing its origin, which is concerning when such material is designed to be shared virally, especially if the material is misleading, controversial or intended to manipulate public opinion without accountability.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 27 would require the Government to establish a review to consider the adequacy of regulated periods of elections and referendums. More specifically, it would consider whether they are of sufficient length to combat mis and disinformation, and the impact of digital campaigning outside regulated periods.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That said, the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with the regulatory framework it is responsible for enforcing. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference. As Members know, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose, including recommendations relating to the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider 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 ↗
“The Online Safety Act already provides Ofcom with extensive powers to gather information from services and scrutinise how algorithms operate as well as a mandate to require services to conduct illegal content risk assessments. That includes assessing the likelihood of users encountering illegal content through algorithms, how systems may exacerbate or mitigate those risks, and what safeguards are required. From 2027, categorised services will also be required to report information about their algorithms, including how they influence the display, promotion or recommendation of content. Creating overlap or confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act also increases the risk of regulatory uncertainty. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will continue to keep wider policy relating to electoral campaigning under review. I turn to new clause 25. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of protecting our elections from online interference, including concerns about how algorithms, such as recommender systems, can amplify harmful or misleading content. The current legal framework to tackle online electoral mis and disinformation has the Online Safety Act 2023 as its core pillar. New clause 25 would risk creating overlap and confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act. Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope services must take action in relation to any content that amounts to existing election offences during an election period.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government agree that transparency in digital campaigning is important, but any reforms must be carefully balanced to protect freedom of expression and avoid placing undue burdens on campaigners and platforms. This is a complex area, and the implications need detailed consideration to avoid replicating the unintended consequences seen in other jurisdictions. In the meantime, we welcome the steps already taken by platforms such as Meta and Google, which have created publicly accessible political advert libraries. We encourage other platforms to do the same. The measures in the Bill will extend the scope of digital imprint rules and place enforcement on a clearer and more proportionate footing, ensuring that voters can continue to make informed decisions on digital material in elections and referenda.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the UK were to adopt comparable measures without fully understanding their operational impact, we could see similar unintended outcomes here. The potential removal of political advertising from major platforms in the UK could risk reducing political pluralism online by restricting the ability of political parties, civil society organisations and candidates, many of whom rely on digital platforms to engage effectively with the public. Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates may be disproportionately impacted by such an outcome, losing an affordable channel to reach voters, while larger, well-followed parties and campaigning groups would likely be less affected. That would make campaigning more challenging for newcomers, potentially undermining the level playing field.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It remains one of the most accessible and cost-effective ways for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard. However, the Committee will be aware that the European Commission introduced similar requirements to new clause 24 in 2024, including mandatory transparency notices containing information such as spending and targeting, and the requirement for platforms to upload all political adverts to a European repository. In response, major platforms such as Meta and Google chose to cease hosting paid political advertising entirely in the EU, citing operational complexity and uncertainty as to whether compliance by platforms and campaigners was realistically achievable.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Members will know, Rycroft made recommendations in his review supporting the principle of advertising libraries and suggested that the Government could use their convening power to work with social media companies to extend the practice of advert libraries to achieve consistency in how they are presented. That is not the same as setting a legal requirement for a repository of digital political advertising, as intended by new clause 10. None the less, we are carefully considering all of the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a response in due course. New clause 24 seeks to establish a repository for paid-for digital political advertising. Digital political advertising plays an important role in supporting democratic engagement.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the independent and expert online safety regulator, Ofcom, not the Government, is best placed to offer such guidance. The Government have no plans to widen their role within the Online Safety Act regulatory regime by issuing guidance on matters within Ofcom’s remit. Introducing a new duty for Government to publish parallel guidance on two specific offences, and committing to regularly updating that guidance, would blur the lines between Government and the independent regulator, undermining the model for which Parliament has only recently legislated. The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that protections keep pace with evolving threats to democracy, and I welcome continued engagement with parliamentarians on that important issue.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That includes content that amounts to the two offences identified in new clause 10: the “false statements about candidates” offence and the offence of undue influence. Those duties apply equally to AI-generated and manipulated content where such material meets the threshold of either offence. As the independent regulator, Ofcom issues codes of practice that provide clear guidance on what action providers should take to manage and mitigate illegal content. The codes recommend various measures across risk management, user reporting and content moderation. Ofcom has already produced guidance to assist providers in making judgments about whether certain content is illegal, and such guidance includes usage examples where possible.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for those and for her commitment to strengthening online protections. I know Members feel strongly about that area. I share the objective of seeing the powers of the Online Safety Act 2023 being fully and effectively utilised. With that in mind, the Government have carefully considered new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications, as they relate to candidates and elected officials. Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope service providers are already required to have effective systems and processes in place to identify and remove illegal content.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“AI is evolving rapidly, so adopting a definition of “generative artificial intelligence” in primary legislation might struggle to keep pace with technological developments and it could quickly become outdated. Although we share the intention to strengthen transparency in digital campaigning, the Government do not believe that the new clause is currently workable or proportionate. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently announced that the Government will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in the autumn. I urge Members to follow the progress of that taskforce. I turn to new clause 10 and amendment 4. I thank my hon.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would make enforcement by the Electoral Commission and the police difficult in practice, and it would risk undermining campaigners’ compliance with the rules. The new clause, as drafted, would also create uncertainty and disproportionate legal risks for campaigners. For example, it would create a new criminal offence for failing to include a statement about AI use, even where the AI involvement may be trivial, automated or outside the campaigner’s knowledge or control. Further consideration would also be needed on how liability for offences should apply to those who republish material. There would also be a considerable chance of the new clause quickly becoming obsolete.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 18 seeks to require digital campaigning material, in scope of the digital imprint regime, that contains images, audio or video generated or materially altered to include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used. The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes, and the risks they present to democratic processes and public trust in the online information environment. We agree that helping voters understand the authenticity of digital campaigning material is an important objective. However, AI technologies are developing at pace, and there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining when content has been generated or materially altered by AI.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, the Government recognise that there are potential issues with section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. We are reviewing how that legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting and, where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of the section, particularly to make sure that it captures emerging technologies such as deepfakes and other AI technologies and is future-proofed. Question put and agreed to. Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 65 Decriminalisation of certain requirements 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 hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that the Government have established a taskforce to take forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated material. With the interim report due to be published in the autumn, I think it is timely that I should write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to outline the concerns that have been debated in the Committee—I am looking to my officials to ensure that we pick this up—because I think it will be very informative for the taskforce’s work. If the hon. Gentleman is happy for me to do that, I will do so.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of removing these restrictions is to ensure that the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine can be applied uniformly across all relevant offences around the UK. We will be increasing the maximum fine level in secondary legislation. This will ensure that the Electoral Commission’s new maximum fine provides a meaningful deterrent against violations of the rules across the UK, no matter where the offence is committed. As the regulator, the Electoral Commission is invaluable in upholding trust in our democracy. That is why we are expanding the commission’s role and powers, including extending its enforcement remit and increasing its maximum fine. We intend for the Electoral Commission’s expanded role and powers to apply UK-wide at all elections, including parliamentary and local government elections.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Criminal prosecution will remain available for the most serious offences involving intentional or reckless breaches of the rules, but the EC will also now be able to apply its considerable knowledge and expertise to the enforcement of breaches across the political finance framework, providing for a more encompassing, proportionate and robust regime. Clause 67 removes the statutory cap on the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for certain offences. Currently, where an offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine, the penalty imposed by the EC may not exceed that which can be imposed by the court. The maximum fine that can be imposed by a court in such instances is unlimited in England and Wales, but £10,000 in Scotland and £5,000 in Northern Ireland.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This enforcement gap risks undermining public trust in the integrity of the electoral system by creating the perception that the rules are not being enforced and that campaigners are not complying with them. At the same time, it can create a fear of criminal prosecution for candidates, election agents and recall petition campaigners, who could face police investigation for relatively minor breaches of the law. Clause 66 is intended to close that gap by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement remit, including its investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, to cover offences in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since 2010, to provide for more flexible and encompassing enforcement, the Electoral Commission has been able to impose civil sanctions for certain offences committed by political parties, third-party campaigners and referendum participants. In contrast, offences committed in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners are subject only to criminal sanctions and enforcement by the police. Practically speaking, this means that breaches of the rules can be addressed only through police investigation and criminal prosecution, even where a breach is minor or unintentional. Yet criminal prosecution for minor infractions is frequently considered disproportionate to the offence and not in the public interest, which means that breaches of the rules often go unaddressed and unsanctioned.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This will provide much-needed clarity that the Electoral Commission is responsible for enforcing such administrative breaches, allowing police resources to be directed towards tackling more serious criminal offences and clamping down on foreign money entering politics. In addition, by removing the threat of criminal prosecution for minor infractions, the clause will encourage participation by individuals and organisations that wish to campaign, while ensuring more proportionate enforcement of the rules. Turning to clause 66, robust and proportionate enforcement of political finance law is essential for sustaining trust in our democracy. However, there is currently an enforcement gap in electoral regulation.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 65 and subsequent secondary legislation will address this by decriminalising administrative offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, so that they will be punishable only through civil sanctions by the Electoral Commission rather than criminal prosecution. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to determine which offences under PPERA should be decriminalised. Broadly, they relate to failures to comply with reporting requirements, such as failing to deliver a campaign expenditure return within the statutory time limit or failing to deliver a proper statement of accounts. Serious breaches, including intentional or reckless misreporting, will remain criminal offences and will continue to be investigated by the police and subject to criminal prosecution.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to clauses 65 to 69 before turning to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members. Under the current enforcement framework, most political finance offences, regardless of their severity, are treated as possible criminal offences, even when they amount to minor administrative breaches, such as the late submission of campaign expenditure reports. While criminal investigation and prosecution for such offences is rare, key stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission, have expressed concerns that the possibility of criminal prosecution for minor errors can deter participation in campaigning.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I understand it, we will be setting the maximum fine in secondary legislation, but I will confirm that, because I have almost lost the thread of what I was saying.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is our intention to increase the maximum fine level in secondary legislation, as I stated earlier. Its level will be debated at that time. We will debate it in secondary legislation, but it needs to remain proportionate, and we need to move towards it in a considered way and debate it then.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will issue a full Government response in due course, and, where appropriate, we will introduce new amendments to the Bill. With those assurances, I commend clause 69 to the Committee. I will allow other Members to speak to the new clauses and I will respond to them in due course.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will nurture an environment of collaboration between relevant bodies on cross-cutting issues such as foreign interference, data protection and digital campaigning. To ensure that the information-sharing gateway remains effective as the regulatory landscape evolves, the list of bodies can be amended by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Electoral Commission and subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure. The Government note that one of the recommendations of the Rycroft report is to build on this measure and make the information-sharing gateway reciprocal, to provide clarity that the Electoral Commission can also receive information from relevant bodies. We are carefully considering all the recommendations from the Rycroft review.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The lack of an explicit legal basis for information sharing forces the commission to rely on incidental powers or bespoke memorandums of understanding to disclose information. Those arrangements create unnecessary complexity and delays, and make information sharing more burdensome than it ought to be. They have embedded unnecessary friction into the system, slowing co-operation between regulators on important cross-cutting regulatory issues, and frustrating the very bodies charged with upholding the integrity of our democratic processes. To underpin our wider reforms to strengthen enforcement, the clause provides a clear legal basis for information sharing, enabling the commission to disclose information to specified regulators and enforcement bodies.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our policy ambition is for these legislative changes to be consistent across reserved and devolved elections and to be commenced in a way that provides clarity to campaigners on how the rules will be enforced across all elections. Clause 68 provides for that, as it allows the Secretary of State to make provisions that could otherwise be made by Scottish or Welsh Ministers, but only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers. In practice, subject to the agreement of the devolved Governments, that will enable us to introduce a uniform set of changes to the role and power of the Electoral Commission in relation to local government elections in Scotland and Wales. I turn to clause 69. The Electoral Commission currently lacks an explicit statutory gateway to disclose information to other regulators and law enforcement bodies.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My officials work very closely with the Electoral Commission and would not have acted without consideration and with consultation with it. I remind the Committee that decisions about the resourcing of the Electoral Commission fall to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is the route by which it is funded. We would not want to make regulation too burdensome, but correspondingly, the Electoral Commission reports to the Speaker’s Committee regularly about its resourcing needs. Indeed, mostly recently, it returned money to the Speaker’s Committee that it did not feel it needed. To reassure Members, officials work closely with it to ensure there is sufficient resource.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Opposition Members did ask about the level at which we would set the fine. I have now consulted my notes; we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the limit to £500,000 per offence. That will be done through secondary legislation.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My officials work with it collaboratively, and I meet with it regularly. It is comfortable, but we must always remember that it is accountable to Parliament, not to Government.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reality is that the Electoral Commission already imposes fines; it is just that they are not big enough. I argue that, by not setting the level in primary legislation but doing it in secondary legislation, it can be responsive should it need to be changed in the future, which it may need to be. We have talked about the revolving nature of foreign interference; in similar ways, the offences and their gravity may change over time. To be able to respond to that through secondary legislation is important, and we should not be hidebound by requiring primary legislation. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament, not to Government. It is a very important point to make that the consideration of its comfortableness, abilities or capacity is a discussion for Parliament.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission through the development of the measures in the Bill, and we will continue to work collaboratively as we develop the detail of proposals for increasing the maximum fine that it can impose. Those details will be set out in secondary legislation in due course, and at that time Parliament will rightly have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the Government’s approach and consider whether to approve the legislation. For those reasons, and with those reassurances in place, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any such order is subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. It was through the exercise of that power, and through that process, that the existing maximum fine was established in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010, which is referenced in the new clause. It is therefore appropriate to follow the same process for making changes to the commission’s regime of civil sanctions where it is already provided for in legislation. In terms of adding statutory requirements that must be met before the Secretary of State can make a supplementary order, the Government have seen no evidence that such conditions are necessary.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Electoral Commission has argued for a long time that it risks becoming a mere cost of doing business for the largest political parties and campaigners. The Government agree that increasing the maximum fine is essential, so that sanctions reflect the scale of modern political campaigning and ensure that all campaigners, no matter how large, face significant repercussions when the rules are broken. That is why we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the commission’s maximum fine significantly to up to £500,000 per offence. The reason why the change will be made through secondary legislation is that Parliament has already provided the Secretary of State with the power to make supplementary orders in relation to the Electoral Commission’s civil sanction regime.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 57 seeks to increase the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 per offence to a new maximum of £500,000 or 4% of campaign expenditure, whichever is greater. It also requires that any order seeking to amend the suggested percentage can be made only if recommended by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has robust enforcement powers. A strong and proportionate civil sanctions regime is essential for securing compliance with the rules and upholding trust in our democracy. The current maximum fine of £20,000 does not provide a meaningful deterrent against rule breaking.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference. Although we do not support the amendment, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review that reinforce measures already included in the Bill to ensure political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose. There will be a full Government response to the review, and we will consider whether further amendments to the Bill are appropriate in the light of that work. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Enforcement decisions could become a quagmire of legal challenge, which would delay action and weaken the commission’s overall effectiveness as a regulator. Having given these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will not press new clause 41. I turn now to new clause 53, which seeks to provide the Electoral Commission with powers to request information from any person where such information is relevant to determining whether to open an investigation. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the right tools it needs to make informed decisions about potential breaches of political finance rules. The commission already has substantial information-gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is vital that it retains the flexibility it needs to decide how best to use its enforcement powers, rather than being tied to a rigid statutory checklist for individual enforcement decisions. The Government have been clear in our commitment to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s independence, including through the repeal of the strategy and policy statement, which the commission was previously required to consider in the exercise of its functions. Introducing further statutory requirements of this kind risks cutting across that principle and altering the balance of the commission’s operational autonomy. There is a very real risk that amending PPERA to codify these principles in this way is unnecessarily duplicative and could lead to legal uncertainty.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That includes the ability to issue fines for a wide range of offences, the use of stop notices and enforcement undertakings, and provision for representations and appeals. The Electoral Commission is also required to publish guidance on its use of such powers, which it must have regard to when exercising its functions. It does this through its enforcement policy. Therefore, fairness and proportionality are already central to how the Electoral Commission operates. Indeed, the commission’s enforcement policy explicitly states that it will impose sanctions where appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. For that reason, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to apply the Macrory principles as the new clause proposes. The Electoral Commission is, and must remain, an independent regulator.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to each of the new clauses, beginning with new clause 41, which seeks to place the Macrory principles on a statutory footing in relation to the Electoral Commission’s use of civil sanctioning powers. We fully recognise the importance of the Macrory principles and agree that regulatory enforcement should always be flexible, transparent and proportionate. These principles were designed to guide the construction of regulatory systems and sanction regimes. As such, the Macrory principles directed the development of the Electoral Commission’s regime of civil sanctions, which was introduced by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and therefore is already embedded in the commission’s regulatory practices.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note that new clause 46 draws on a recommendation from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and covers very similar ground to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work. Question put and agreed to. Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 10 agreed to. Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 11 agreed to. Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The commission already has substantial information gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules. That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference. As Members know, we are considering the relevant recommendations of the review that could reinforce measures already in the Bill to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remains robust and fit for purpose.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have considered it, and we have decided to opt for a fine of £500,000. However, when we introduce the secondary legislation, the debate may flesh out that argument, and the figure may change, should secondary legislation and the debate lead to that conclusion. However, at this stage, we will not accept the amendment. New clause 46 seeks to give the Electoral Commission powers to compel financial institutions to disclose information related to income and expenditure of regulated entities, such as political parties and candidates, where it is reasonably required by the commission to carry out its functions. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with political finance rules.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers. Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.”
House of Commons13 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗