← Back to House of Commons Debates
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill - New Clause 116
02 September 2026
Lead MP
Florence Eshalomi
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Democracy & ElectionsStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 59
At a Glance
Florence Eshalomi raised concerns about political parties, elections and referendums bill - new clause 116 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I propose New Clause 116 to introduce a cap on donations from overseas contributors to political parties and candidates. This measure is necessary to ensure the integrity of our democratic process and prevent undue foreign influence. Recent cases have shown the potential for foreign entities to exert significant influence through large donations, which undermines public trust. The clause seeks to limit such contributions to a reasonable amount to maintain the autonomy and independence of our political system. Furthermore, it includes provisions for transparency and reporting to ensure that all contributions are properly accounted for and made public.
Dunbartonshire East
New Clause 116 aims to curb the influence of foreign entities on UK politics by capping donations from overseas contributors. It is essential for safeguarding our democratic institutions and ensuring that elections are fair and free from foreign interference. Recent examples highlight the risks associated with unregulated foreign donations. Additionally, the clause mandates transparency and reporting requirements to uphold public confidence in the electoral process.
Harlow
Agrees with the shadow Minister on the need to take foreign interference in the electoral system seriously. Emphasises the importance of a robust Bill that is willing to make necessary changes to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Asks the shadow Minister to be cautious and proceed on the basis of robust evidence, highlighting the serious implications of unsubstantiated allegations regarding the integrity of the democratic process.
Lisa Smart
Con
Rotherham
Points out the irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that has borrowed extensively from other languages, questioning the practicality and necessity of such legislative measures.
Luke Akehurst
Con
East Ham
Asks the shadow Minister to confirm whether the Conservative party has ever published election leaflets in languages other than English, questioning the consistency of the argument against the use of foreign languages in election materials.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Paul Holmes intervened to support the amendment, highlighting the conflict in the Green party’s leaflet that urged voters to punish the Labour party for Gaza. He also mentioned that the Conservative party policy does not produce election literature in languages other than English during the short campaign.
Luke Taylor raised a question during an intervention, expressing concern over the conflict between addressing family voting issues by providing information in a language that family members can understand and the steps to restrict information being produced in such languages.
Samantha Dixon supported the amendment, praising the Bill as groundbreaking and essential for protecting democracy and ensuring voter engagement. She noted the importance of abiding by the rules set by the legislation and urged constructive engagement with other political parties. She also suggested the need for a strategic Government position in taking the legislation forward.
Caroline Nokes
Con
Romsey and Southampton North
Ms Nokes intervenes to remind the House that proportional representation is out of scope of the Bill.
Mr Reader expresses support for the Bill but raises concerns about foreign influence and the need for a national commission on electoral reform to address the different electoral systems in the UK and ensure fair representation.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
Argues that the government's inconsistency in treating 16-year-olds as adults for some purposes but not others undermines the credibility of the decision to extend voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. Cites examples such as the inability of 16-year-olds to marry or use social media without curfews, contrasting these restrictions with the proposed right to vote. Mentions Labour's stance on maturity for criminal actions until the age of 25.
Gareth Snell
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Intervenes to challenge the right hon. Lady's position, questioning why someone living abroad can vote based on citizenship while a 16-year-old living in the country cannot. Emphasises the citizenship rights and contributions of 16-year-olds.
Questions whether the right hon. Lady supports raising the age to work or drive to match the voting age, arguing inconsistency in her position.
Intervenes to ask a question, likely supporting the amendment or questioning the right hon. Lady's stance.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll and Bute
Asks if the right hon. Lady supports reversing the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, citing evidence suggesting that engagement makes them better citizens.
Supports the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds, citing political maturity in sixth forms. Argues that the influence of money on politics undermines democracy and calls for safeguards against the role of international social media platform owners.
Welcomes work experience students to the gallery and implicitly supports the speaker's stance.
Supports extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, citing awareness and desire among young people. Advocates for an access to elected office fund and personal safety protections for candidates and their families. Criticises the government's delay in implementing these measures.
Supports the need for further steps to ensure the security of candidates and their families, proposing automatic anonymity of candidates' addresses.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Bow
Ali supports new clauses to enhance resistance to cryptoassets in political finance, protect against online harms and deepfakes, and prevent intimidation at polling stations. She argues that these measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of the democratic process and protect candidates from harassment and disinformation. She cites the significant financial impact of foreign interference and the need for robust legislation to counteract the growing threat of AI-driven disinformation and cyber attacks.
Shivani Raja
Con
Ealing Central and Acton
Shivani Raja argues that the proposed new clauses offer practical solutions to the systemic failure of overseas postal ballots, which disenfranchises nearly half of overseas electors. She supports new clause 63, which allows in-person voting at UK embassies and consulates, and new clause 64, which mandates a review into overseas participation to establish best practices. She also supports new clause 65, which would allow citizens to register to vote when renewing their British passport.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
Stella Creasy supports new clause 21 to introduce a cap on political donations. She argues that large donations distort politics and erode public trust. She cites the rise of mega-donations and the role of foreign entities in political funding. Creasy emphasises the need to protect trade union funding, which she sees as a clean and regulated method of political finance. She warns that without action, the influence of wealthy donors could undermine the voice of the people.
Luke Taylor
Con
Sutton and Cheam
Mr Taylor supports the new clause, emphasising the need to address the modern challenges posed by political donations and campaign expenditure, particularly the influence of foreign actors and wealthy individuals. He argues that the Government's failure to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations undermines public confidence in the democratic process.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Ms Thornberry supports the need for further action to protect democracy from foreign interference, arguing that the Bill does not go far enough. She proposes a complete ban on overseas voters donating to political parties and emphasises the importance of ensuring that donors are full UK citizens paying their full taxes. She also proposes new clauses to address descriptions on ballot papers and the order of candidates on ballots.
Danny Kruger
Con
Devizes
Danny Kruger criticises the Bill for not addressing technological threats to democracy. He argues that the Bill is partisan and aimed at Reform UK, exempting trade unions from donation restrictions while targeting other political entities. He supports amendments to restrict foreign citizen voting and proxy voting to preserve the integrity of the electoral system.
Darren Paffey
Con
Stretford and Urmston
Darren Paffey supports the Bill and amendments, arguing that they are necessary to rebuild trust in politics and address issues like voter registration inconsistencies, big money in politics, and voting integrity. He emphasises the need to ensure that voting is safe, confident, independent, and secret.
Judith Cummins
Lab
Bradford South
Judith Cummins reminds the House that an amendment that is not in scope should not be discussed. She does not provide detailed arguments but sets a procedural limit on the debate.
Ilford North
Manuela Perteghella argues that the Bill needs to go further to restore public trust in the political system by capping political donations and extending voting rights to EU citizens and foreign nationals with residency rights. She supports new clauses to extend the franchise, close down improper influence, and ensure campaign integrity.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll and Bute
Brendan O'Hara supports the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds but expresses serious concerns about the current Bill. He highlights the frustration of Labour Members who promised to shred the Elections Act 2022 and introduce fairness, equality, transparency, and accountability. He mentions several amendments that would improve the Bill, such as new clauses 34, 35, 54, 58, 69, 70, 85, 86, and 20, which address cryptocurrency, foreign donations, campaign spending, and domestic abuse. He is disappointed that the Government has not adopted more of these amendments.
Ellie Chowns
Green
Leeds North West
Ellie Chowns supports amendment 15 and new clause 30, advocating for stricter regulations on corporate donations and annual campaign expenditure limits. She argues that corporate donations can be a loophole, with opaque entities potentially influencing politics. Chowns also supports new clause 70, which would lower campaign spending limits, and new clause 120, which calls for a cap on donations. She emphasises the need to address the influence of big money in politics and the importance of preventing disinformation through digital political advertising.
Alex Sobel
Lab
Leeds North West
Welcomes the Bill as a step towards fairer politics and supports the Prime Minister’s commitment to free and fair elections. He introduces new clause 31, which was ruled out of scope, and new clause 69, proposing a £1 million cap on individual donors. He emphasises the need to prevent election-distorting behaviour by the ultra-wealthy and welcomes spending limits and foreign donor regulation.
Speaks to new clause 19, which calls for feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements for overseas voters. He highlights the low postal ballot return rate and the difficulties faced by overseas voters, particularly members of the armed forces. He calls for changes to the UK electoral system to improve the participation of overseas voters and criticises the Government for making only negligible changes.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
Introduces new clause 22 to stop oil and gas companies from donating to political parties. He emphasises the need to break the power of oil and gas companies over politics to tackle climate change and protect people from its impacts. He highlights the role of fossil fuel companies in delaying climate action and argues for the principle that those profiting from the crisis should not use their wealth to pollute politics.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham, Hodge Hill
Liam Byrne supported the amendments, highlighting recent revelations about the Reform party's finances and the need for stricter regulations. He criticised the existing amendments for potential loopholes and called for a ban on off-ramping and memecoins. He also raised concerns about Members of Parliament generating ad share revenue, arguing for stricter rules on political finance and the media political complex.
Jim Allister
DUP
North Antrim
Mr Allister expressed concern about the disenfranchisement of Northern Irish constituents due to the Windsor framework, which he believes denies them the right to elect those who make laws in over 300 areas. He argued that while 16-year-olds in Great Britain have full franchise, Northern Irish citizens are denied similar rights, which he sees as fundamentally wrong. He also questioned the Minister about a potential loophole where donations from Irish citizens abroad might not be subject to the same constraints as others.
Peter Lamb
Lab
High Peak
Mr Lamb intervened to clarify that the House decides on behalf of all constituents, including those in Northern Ireland, and that the Windsor framework is in the best interest of the country. He argued that using concerns about Northern Irish representation to withhold voting rights for 16 and 17-year-olds in Great Britain is spurious.
Anneliese Dodds
Lab
Oxford East
Ms Dodds supports new clause 70, arguing it would set a limit on campaign spending and prevent a spending arms race. She cites examples of excessive spending in the US and the UK, and emphasises the need for greater transparency on political advertising and funding. She calls for urgent action to regulate online platforms and third-party campaigning to protect democracy.
Hayes and Harlington
Mr McDonnell supports the idea of extending the franchise to include residents rather than just citizens, as in Scotland and Wales. He argues that his new clauses would increase voter participation and social cohesion. He notes that 4.4 million residents in the UK cannot vote in general elections, and his amendments would allow those with permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in local elections, and those with settled status or indefinite leave to remain to vote in general elections.
Peter Lamb
Lab
Derby North
The Elections Act is ineffective in preventing personation, which is vanishingly rare. The real issue is foreign interference and disenfranchisement. This Bill aims to re-enfranchise eligible voters, introduce automatic voter registration, and strengthen the Electoral Commission's independence. It also seeks to enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds and provide necessary financial support to council officers managing elections.
Lloyd Hatton
Lab
Cheadle
This Bill introduces necessary safeguards to rebuild trust in democracy by preventing corruption, undue influence, and foreign interference. Existing rules lack scrutiny of new party funds upon registration. My amendment proposes post-registration checks for funds over £250,000 to ensure full and meaningful scrutiny of major donations before registration.
Chris Hinchliff
Lab
Glasgow North East
Mr Hinchliff proposed new clause 25 to ban developer donations to political parties, arguing that such donations create a perception of undue influence over planning decisions and undermine public trust in the political system. He highlighted the negative impact of speculative development on communities and the environment, and called for a planning system that prioritises people over profit.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Wealden
The speaker acknowledges the importance of protecting democracy and supports the new clauses aimed at preventing online harms, such as AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation, and other forms of online harassment. She also supports the measures to clean up political donations, especially regarding cryptocurrency, and believes that these measures are crucial for safeguarding democracy.
The speaker supports the new clauses aimed at preventing online harms, arguing that these risks must be mitigated for the preservation of public life. He also supports cleaning up political donations, particularly regarding cryptocurrency, and believes that these measures are vital to safeguarding democracy. He supports bringing forward rules that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote, citing their ability to understand and participate in the democratic process.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Green
Newcastle upon Tyne Central
Argues that the amendment would prevent political donors from securing government contracts, which has led to £60 billion-worth of contracts being awarded to companies that donated to political parties. He emphasises the need to address the influence of the super-rich and lobbying interests in politics to ensure a more equitable democracy.
Sam Rushworth
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Supports the idea of allowing 16-year-olds to vote, arguing that the transition from childhood to adulthood is a gradual process and that getting young people engaged in the democratic process at 16 means it sticks with them throughout their lives. He also criticises the Conservative party's record on issues affecting young people and argues that giving them a vote would ensure they are not ignored.
Phil Brickell
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
Phil Brickell, a Labour MP, thanks the Minister and her predecessor for their engagement on the Bill. He endorses several amendments and focuses on new clause 121 and amendment 151. New clause 121 aims to ensure future-proof spending limits, set according to fairness, impact on political parties, and public confidence. Amendment 151 seeks to close loopholes in corporate donations by calculating limits using average profits over five years. Brickell calls for reforms to reduce incentives for parties to seek problematic funding and strengthen transparency to prevent undue influence in politics.
Apsana Begum
Lab
Poplar and Limehouse
Apsana Begum introduces new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse by extending disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022 to cover domestic abuse offences. She argues that survivors should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office and calls on the Government to adopt these changes to ensure that our democracy is representative and free from structural barriers that block out survivors.
Sojan Joseph
Lab
Bolton West
Joseph welcomed Government new clause 72, which would prohibit political parties from accepting donations in cryptoassets to ensure integrity in political donations. He also supported new clause 116 to introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on political donations from overseas contributors. Joseph expressed hope that the Government will address remaining concerns and close any loopholes.
Mark Sewards
Con
North East Derbyshire
Sewards proposed amendments 31 and 34 to strengthen the checks on political donations, particularly concerning the location of donors and the source of wealth. He questioned the absence of these checks in the Government's amendments and sought clarification from the Minister on why these were not incorporated. Sewards emphasised the importance of preventing foreign money from influencing UK politics.
Julie Minns
Lab
Gordon
Julie Minns supports new clause 48 which aims to ensure blind and partially sighted voters can vote independently and in secret. She cites her work from the 1997 general election on the issue of accessible voting and highlights the case of her constituent John who could not reliably vote due to lack of accessible voting devices. She emphasises that only a quarter of blind voters can vote independently and in secret, while two-thirds rely on a companion or polling station staff. She calls for the Government to commit to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place.
Battersea
Marsha de Cordova intervened to support Julie Minns, agreeing that blind and partially sighted voters should have the right to vote independently and in secret. She highlights her own experience as a visually impaired person and calls for everyone to work together to ensure that every person has the ability and the right to exercise their vote independently and in secret.
Anna Dixon supported Julie Minns, agreeing that further work should be done to ensure that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also have access to voting and can participate in elections without barriers.
Sean Woodcock discusses the erosion of public faith in the democratic system, citing statistics that show a significant number of people believe politicians often lie and that access to power is available to those who can afford it. He emphasises the need for a commission on electoral reform to address concerns about public confidence and democratic resilience, and urges the Government to take this into consideration.
Croydon South
The Minister supports the Bill’s measures to strengthen political finance, enhance candidate safety, and protect election integrity. She commits to reviewing and updating laws to ensure adequate protections against domestic abuse and intimidation. She also emphasises the need for transparency in electoral processes and supports the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in voting.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
Welcomes the Minister’s commitment to protecting the integrity of the next general election.
Asks the Minister to consider listing on registers of interests once a candidate is elected, that they have undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check, to provide transparency for schools, care homes, and women’s shelters.
Alex Sobel
Lab
Leeds North West
Inquires if the Government is actively considering changing the system from first past the post.
Asks for more detailed timelines and commitments on donation caps and spending limits ahead of the next general election.
Stresses the importance of empowering young voters with the tools to engage in informed and engaged democratic processes.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.