Parliamentary Parties Panel minutes: 2 September 2025

CL requested an administrative amendment to June’s minutes in section 2.9 as some of the text was cut off. Minutes were then approved with no amends.

SP outlined the proposed changes to the Royal Mail Universal Service Obligation and explained specifically how this would affect candidate and poll card mail: Second Class letters would be delivered within 3 days of collection by Royal Mail, but the window for delivery would change – addressed   candidate mail and the Pollcard Mailing Option will be delivered over a 4-day delivery (Monday-Friday) period, instead of a 3-day delivery period (Monday-Saturday). There will be no change to the Unaddressed Candidate Mail delivery, which has a specification of a 7-day delivery window.

VR asked how postal votes would be impacted. SP explained that postal votes are normally sent via first class mail, which has no planned significant changes, but that whether these are sent first or second class is at the discretion of the local authority. PD raised that some local authorities are currently considering sending postal votes second class to reduce costs.

SD asked whether there would be any further communications or engagement from the Royal Mail to parties and campaigners ahead of polling day to clarify final dates to send mail so it can reach voters in time. SP said that Royal Mail were planning to increase their communications and noted that they were in the process of meeting campaign teams now. CL and AW both confirmed that they had recently met with Royal Mail.

SP stated that she was happy for her contact details and the slides to be shared and for parties to contact her directly with any queries.

BC gave a high level overview of the strategy. She noted it reflected  commitments in the Labour Party’s manifesto, including votes at 16, automatic voter registration, reforms to the political finance regime and expanding the range of acceptable Voter ID. BC outlined that there were also some broader proposals, including taking action to address harassment and abuse of both candidates and returning officers, and exploring how to make voting more accessible.

Political finance measures

DM outlined the four main aspects of the political finance reforms: including Know Your Donor (KYD) checks, new donation controls on companies, increasing transparency around unincorporated associations and requiring individuals or entities donating over £7,500 to make a declaration about the source of the funding for a donation. 

CH explained that the proposals aim to strengthen enforcement of the political finance rules. He noted that the Electoral Commission’s remit would be extended to include enforcement of the candidate finance laws, local non-party campaigning and certain administrative offences, transferring responsibility from the police. He shared detail on the proposals to increase the Commission’s maximum fine up to £500,000, noting specifically that there would be safeguards in place to prevent smaller parties that have less financial resources from being bankrupt my maximum fine. He also explained the Bill looked to introduce changes to ‘leave to pay’ laws as currently campaigners are unable to pay invoices late unless they go to court, which is both impractical and time confusing. CH noted that the Commission will be given a statutory legal foundation to request information from other bodies and regulators to support its work as a regulator and invited. any questions.

IM welcomed the proposal to change the Leave to Pay rules and asked whether there were considerations being given to make it an offence for an impermissible donor who is knowingly trying to circumvent legislation to be pursued, instead of the political party. CH explained that there was already an offence in PPERA addressing this, providing an important safeguard.

IM asked if donors to unincorporated associations (UA) would be scrutinised in the same way as donors to political parties are. DM shared more detailed and explained that the requirement to conduct permissibility checks would fall on the UA, providing increased transparency over donations made by UAs.

OR said that the top-level strategy and its proposals were welcome but noted that it was important to see the detail. He specifically welcomed that consideration was being given to recognise the potential burdens on smaller parties. OR asked what the level of requirement for KYD risk assessments would be, and for what kind of donations. DM explained it would apply to all donations captured by PPERA, and risk assessments for significantly larger donations would need to be proportionate.DM agreed that more detail would be shared with the parties in due course.

JK explained that the Commission would work hard to ensure parties have guidance and resources in place for when these laws come into effect, recognising the impact on their processes and teams  She explained the Commission’s approach to producing guidance, and that parties would be consulted, ensuring the resources are clear and support them to apply the laws confidently. VR explained that the Commission recognised the ongoing pressures on their compliance teams, given the regulatory cycle and associated reporting requirements with BAU, even outside of electoral events.

CL asked when the measures would be introduced. BC explained this would be dependent on when the Bill was passed but noted currently planning assumptions were for it to apply from 2028 polls onwards.  

CL explained that in the past parties had been consulted on policy proposals and asked what consultation has been done with parties. BC explained that the strategy had been developed based on previous recommendations that are publicly available and that parties will be consulted on how it is implemented.

CL asked MHCLG when consultation would take place with parties, noting it was regrettable nothing had happened to date, given the significance of the measures and if the measures were to be in place for the 2028 polls. BC said that there would be an update on plans for consultation ahead of the next  PPP on the 2 December, and more detail shared with PPP at the next meeting   VR explained that the policy detail was important, and that parties would be able to provide expert insight and knowledge into any key considerations or practical challenges, as while the recommendations have been made for a long time, the operating context and environment is evolving.

CL explained that it was important to recognise that parties have already had to take cost-cutting measures and will need more money to increase their compliance functions to fulfil the new requirements, but that early understanding of the detail of the proposals was important for internal party planning. CL asked if there would be additional funding to help parties do this. DM responded that the majority of the proposals apply to donors and that there is an expectation that parties are conducting checks already, and MHCLG can help build a framework to assist parties with additional responsibilities. CL stated that parties are conducting checks, but the bill would require them to increase their compliance teams, which will impact on funding.

CL asked that whether the Know Your Donor threshold - £11,180 – would be for single donations only or include aggregated donations, and if it would apply to accounting units alongside the central party. DM explained that that the proposal applies to aggregations, and that the department would welcome views on accounting units, and this would be useful to get the parties input on MHCLG explained that they were working on the basis that only central parties would receive donations over £11,180, CL stated that the Commission’s guidance would need to be comprehensive and suitable for accounting unit treasurers who are volunteers. LD explained that accounting units do receive large donations, and meaningful consultation was needed for a proportionate approach.

CL addressed the proposals that relate to company donations, highlighting that proof of a company’s income is not always publicly available, and that parties have always been happy to accept donations from reserves. CL asked how companies that export or import goods would be dealt with by the proposals. DM said MHCLG would have to come back to the parties on this. JK stated that the Commission has previously recommended that donations should be limited to a company’s profit. CL stated that this is not available on Companies House.

CL asked when parties would be able to get a list of the regulators the Commission could request information from and whether political parties would be informed before information was released, as with Freedom of Information Request.  CH stated that MHCLG will aim to share the list and further information about the process with the parties.

MT asked why the Commission’s maximum fine was being raised to £500,000. TH explained that the current fine of £20,000 is not proportionate to the levels of income and expenditure from the parties. CL stated that this may be the case during a general election but asked what protection was in place for parties who were unable to comply due to administrative errors. JK stated that the Commission intends to ensure fines are used judiciously and proportionately. CH explained that significant discretion is given to the Commission on the decision to enforce the fine dependent on nature of offence, compliance history and any extenuating circumstances. VR stated that the Commission will need to create a new Enforcement policy after new proposals are in force and that parties would be consulted on this.

CJ raised that the point on the impact of smaller parties was crucial. CJ explained that the increased compliance burden and increased fines would pose an existential risk to smaller parties. KH explained that the policy had been designed with safeguards in place for smaller parties and that MHCLG were aware of the importance of getting the balance right to provide both deterrents and prevent disproportionate impact on smaller parties. CL raised that as the parties has not been consulted to date, so providing reassurance on these issues was important. LD stated that the Commission recognises the administrative burden on parties, encouraged representatives to get in touch so we can provide tailored and targeted support to them, including through bespoke resources. 

PM explained that the guidance was currently being translated and would be published in mid-September. PM explained the key changes and things to note given the changes to the law, parties will determine any roles and responsibilities for candidates and agents for spending and donations, and that the guidance will be primarily for parties with party list guidance being particularly minimal. 

AW raised that for the upcoming by-election in Caerphilly, there was lack of clarity on whether to apply the old or new legislation. PM stated that the guidance is currently with translation and will be sent to parties as soon as possible. 
 

No points were raised. 

CL asked when the spending limits for the upcoming Welsh elections would be made available. TH said the Commission would shortly respond with its recommendation and consent for any changes and noted that the Welsh Government was due to lay subsequent legislation imminently. 

KB noted limited notice has been given for these changes. TH said the Commission was happy to reflect this view from the panel members to the Welsh Government. CL noted that it would be helpful to know about given the internal implications for parties, for example organising audits. LD said the Commission would be happy to discuss how best to provide support.

VR noted the number of changes at the upcoming Senedd elections and due to this a detailed review would be needed after the 2026 elections. 

OR asked about the new provision to declare if you have previously been a member of a political party, noting there is no independent check on this declaration. VR said the Commission may pick this up as part of a wider post-election review.

TO outline the new Political Finance Online project and explained that as part of the requirements and discovery work of the project, engagement was planned with system users such as parties. TO encouraged the parties to get in touch as their input was key to building the right system. 

VR explained that the development of a new political finance online system would assist the parties with increased compliance burden and urged them to their feedback with the project as a priority.