Samantha Dixon MBE MP gave evidence.

We are now going to hear oral evidence from the Minister. We all appreciate that the Minister has been struggling with her voice today, and I am sure we will bear with her during this evidence session, which is scheduled to last until 6.10 pm.

Samantha Dixon:

Thank you, Chair—you are really kind. I hope Members will indulge me, and I will do my best to answer their questions today.

Q Minister, thank you; I know that you have had as long a day as the rest of us. I will ask you just a few questions, and the Opposition then wish to adjourn until we meet for line-by-line scrutiny. I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you, based on the evidence that we have heard today.

Part of my concern about this Government’s approach to legislation is that we very often see a jumping to legislate before the evidence is there, and then a backtracking on a number of things. For example, we had a planning and infrastructure Bill being implemented before a devolution Bill, and that devolution Bill cancelled elections to enable things to be delivered, but the elections were then forced back on. It seems that this Government do not think through public policy properly, and I think the Bill is no exception.

It seems odd to me that the Government asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review into election interference, but they have then introduced a Bill that is bringing forward a number of measures in the same field. As a result, the Bill may go through the vast Majority of its parliamentary stages and then rely on secondary legislation, which is a concern that many professors outlined earlier.

Have you made any representations to other Ministers in the Department or to No. 10 for a delay in this legislation, so that the Rycroft review can report and develop recommendations? You could then come back to the House and form a cross-party Committee to see whether those recommendations can be implemented, rather than following this hotchpotch approach that will see the Bill passed, only for a review to then make a number of recommendations on the same subject matter. Does that not seem odd to you?

Samantha Dixon:

Last July, the statement of policy was set out in Parliament, so there was quite a considerable amount of time before the introduction of the Bill. You have seen policy developing over that time.

The conviction of Nathan Gill, which is why the Secretary of State asked Philip Rycroft to undertake the review, was a pivotal moment that highlighted and brought together a number of the issues that the witnesses have talked about today. The Secretary of State set the terms of reference for that review very carefully, but I think that Philip Rycroft indicated that he would act with speed. While I have not met him to date, I know that many people have, including members of this Committee, because his door has been very open to those who want to talk to him. I anticipate that his recommendations will come forward soon, and it is the Government’s intention to listen closely and carefully to what he brings forward.

The Bill, as you will know from Second Reading, is a carry-over Bill, which gives us an opportunity, as we go forward, to consider the recommendations. It is likely that our Committee will finish around the time that we are prorogued, and that Report will come in the second Session of this Parliament. That pause is being provided to us by parliamentary time.

Q I place on the record that I have absolutely no doubt about the Minister’s personal integrity when it comes to making sure that this legislation does the best it possibly can. But it seems unfair and unusual that as we sit on this Committee and as a review goes ahead that was asked for by the Secretary of State—off the back of the conviction of Nathan Gill, quite rightly—the parliamentary mechanisms by which we would want to strengthen that Bill on a cross-party basis could be over. The Government will be bringing forward large-scale amendments on one of its own Bills at a stage where the scrutiny by Members from across the House will not be happening as it should. I understand, Minister, but I think that it is odd—although not unusual from this Government.

I have one more question, which is about digital ID. Since this Government were elected, fairly and resoundingly, it has been clear that they have a problem with the previous Government’s measures on digital ID. Almost every witness today has outlined that the Government’s proposals on bank cards as a potential form of ID are not a good idea; they said that that would not increase security at polling stations or people’s security over their vote, but actually reduce it.

Will you listen to those witnesses and give a commitment to the Committee to go back to the Department and remove bank cards as an acceptable form of ID? Can you outline to the Committee how showing a card with a name on guarantees that the person who is turning up at the polling station is the named person, and how that is fundamentally different to the old system, where a polling card could be taken to a polling station and a vote be given out?

Samantha Dixon:

I think that the integrity of the UK banking system is such that the possession of a bank card requires a degree of ID that is necessary and appropriate. We have to remember that prior to the 2022 Act, there was no ID requirement at all. We have also heard evidence that instances of fraud were extremely low. The introduction of the bank card ID is important because it is widely held by the population, in particular by under-represented groups including 16 and 17-year-olds. I have heard the evidence that the Committee has heard; none the less, I think the inclusion of UK-issued bank cards is an important addition to voter ID, and one that we should continue.

Q What problem are you trying to solve, Minister? It is certainly my contention—you may disagree with this—that most people in this country will have a passport, driving licence or a form of photographic ID, and if you are a student at college, you will have a college ID.

One of the witnesses today suggested that you could have automatic enrolment to voter identification paperwork or digital ID; that is something we would support. What problem are you trying to solve in trying to bring in a bank card as a possible type of identification, when that does not prove your identity? A very minor number of people are affected by this. How much do you anticipate that a bank card will make a difference to the numbers we have heard about today?

Samantha Dixon:

We are talking about people who have the right to vote, but are excluded from voting because they do not have the appropriate ID. Although I accept that many people have passports and driving licences, not all do, and many more people have bank cards. The legitimacy of the banking system in the UK means that those cards should be used by younger people in particular, but could be used by any person who wants to vote in person at a polling station.

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

Q I thank the Minister, who has been battling valiantly throughout the day to participate in our proceedings.

It is clear from all the evidence we have heard today that all the witnesses welcome a number of the steps in the Bill, but a number of them expressed disappointment that the scope had been written so narrowly and that it does not stand up to the moment of crisis and peril that our democracy faces. If the Government think that first past the post is the right system, why not have a national commission on the voting system to test that thesis?

Samantha Dixon:

The Government believe that the voting systems that we use to elect our representatives are really at the heart of our democracy; they are of fundamental importance. We welcome views and feedback on how democracy can be improved. I am grateful for the interest that you have shown in this particular area, but I can confirm that we are content with the voting system that we currently use in general elections, and we have no plans to establish such a commission.

For UK parliamentary elections, we believe that the first-past-the-post system establishes a really strong link between the Constituency and the representative. Although it may not be perfect, we believe it is well understood by the electorate and the communities that we represent. When a seat needs to be filled in Parliament or a council, for example, that link between the representative and those they represent is important. First past the post is appropriate for that system.

There are occasions for other voting systems for wider electorates, and this Bill will make provision for them. For example, for a mayoral election, we are in the process of bringing forward legislation to revert that system back to supplementary voting. When it is a broader constituency—a mayoral area that may cover many constituencies—we accept that that voting system is more appropriate. But at this stage, for council wards and parliamentary constituencies, we remain of the view that first past the post is the best system.

Q I do not want to test the patience of the Chair by getting into the weeds on my favourite voting system, but other voting systems exist in different parts of the United Kingdom, and we heard from witnesses today that they work perfectly well. My next question is, why is revenue the best measure of whether a company is a fit organisation to be donating to political parties given that we heard from a number of witnesses today that profit or indeed a percentage of tax paid might be a better measure?

Samantha Dixon:

The view of the Government is that companies that pass all of the other tests and want to donate to a political party may on occasion be in a position where they are not making profit. For example, if they are taking investment decisions across a particular year, which mean that they are in a non-profit situation but their revenue is still working, they should not be excluded from donating to the political system. That is why the Government’s view is that the test should be revenue, as well as the other tests in place, which we feel are very robust, around UK residency of the persons of particular interest but also the UK headquarters rules and the “know your donor” rules.

The raft of measures that we are introducing make it far more difficult, notwithstanding the evidence and views of those we have heard today. We feel that it brings in protections that currently are not there and will protect our electoral system. It may be that Philip Rycroft comes forward with measures around this, which we will listen to as well as the evidence that we have heard today.

Q I have one final comment. If Donald Trump took all the assets of his companies, split them between him and his children and moved all the money into his UK-based company, which runs golf courses, there would be billions, or hundreds of millions, of pounds. Given how the legislation is written currently, I think that that company could perfectly legitimately donate to any political party. I would venture to say that the Government do not want that and might think about how legislation could be amended to address that.

Samantha Dixon:

We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.

Q I have a brief question about Clause 47 on the voter identification requirements. We have heard quite a lot on the point about bank cards. I am mindful that the Government’s own MoneyHelper website sets out how to get a bank card if you do not have any ID at all and also if you are of no fixed address; I know that is routinely used in electoral processes to establish your entitlement to vote in a particular place.

Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?

Samantha Dixon:

You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.

Q Just to be clear, the question is about digital bank cards. A lot of people have on their phone an image of a card; they will not have a physical card.

Samantha Dixon:

Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.

Katrina Murray, if you can do it in 30 seconds, you can ask a question.

No, I will put the Minister out of her misery; hopefully, she can get to bed.

On that basis, I call proceedings to a halt. Thank you, Minister, for your efforts. That brings us to the end of today’s session. I understand that the Government intend to amend the programme order.

Ordered,

That in paragraph (1) of the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 18 March 2026, leave out line (b). —(Deirdre Costigan.)

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 March at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

RPB01 Online Safety Act Network

RPB02 Marcus J Ball, Private Prosecutor & Legal Reform Campaigner, ExecProsec

RPB03 Dr Ben Stanford

RPB04 Elect Her

RPB05 Migrant Democracy Project (MDP)

RPB06 The Jo Cox Foundation

RPB07 Marie Bosnjak

RPB08 Dr Sam Power, University of Bristol

RPB09 Campaign for Compulsory Voting

RPB10 Open Britain

RPB11 Politics in Action

RPB12 Electoral Reform Society

RPB13 Professor Toby S. James, University of East Anglia and Electoral Integrity Project

RPB14 50:50 Parliament and Centenary Action (joint submission)

RPB15 Centre for Finance and Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

RPB16 A coalition of civil society organisations (joint submission)

RPB17 Spotlight on Corruption

RPB18 Full Fact

RPB19 Electoral Psychology Observatory (EPO), at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

RPB20 Unlock Democracy

RPB21 Association for Citizenship Teaching (ACT)

RPB22 Reform Political Advertising

RPB23 Alan Renwick

RPB24 Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)

RPB25 Elect Her (further submission)

RPB26 Electoral Management Board for Scotland (EMB)

RPB27 Internet Matters

RPB28 Generation Rent

RPB29 Labour International CLP