PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Strategy for Elections - 17 July 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the new policies announced in the Government’s strategy for elections.

The Government have today published our strategy for modern and secure elections. When we came into power just over a year ago, the Government committed through our manifesto to bringing forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections. The strategy we have published today sets out how we will legislate and implement provisions to extend the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, increase participation in our elections, tackle the inconsistencies in voter identification rules, and protect our democracy by overhauling our political finance rules.

We recognise that there is a growing and worrying trend of candidates, administrators and electors facing harassment and intimidation, which has a chilling effect on our democracy. We are bringing forward measures to tackle this issue. I thank Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Conference for the work that is being conducted, and the report that has been published, on harassment and intimidation. We will fix the foundations of how elections operate by taking forward a range of practical measures to ensure that elections continue to be delivered successfully.

Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution, and in how it continues to inspire. The Government have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The plans we have announced today will future-proof our democracy, secure our elections and protect them against interference. We will deliver on these plans during the lifetime of this Parliament through a programme of reforms, which will include an elections Bill that will be introduced in due course. Through this strategy, we will usher in a new chapter in our democracy that reflects our principles and restores faith in our politics. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this very important agenda.

I call the shadow Minister.

Yesterday, the Department gave notice of a written ministerial statement on the Government’s new strategy for elections, which is a significant policy document on changes to election law and political finance law—something that affects us all in this House. Instead of the Minister using this democratic Chamber to announce a new and wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in Monday’s No. 10 lobby briefing—typical government by press release. In fact, it has just been announced on “BBC News”. There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September, due to the pending recess.

Why did the Minister not choose to come to the House to announce this policy, despite us having been given word through a written ministerial statement that the Government would do so? Why did she not think it right to come here of her own accord to announce it? Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date? This is contrary to the approach of the last Government, who actively consulted on changes.



This strategy has finally revealed the Government’s ambition to allow a 16-year-old to vote in an election, but not to stand in it, probably because young people are abandoning the Labour party in droves. Why do they think a 16-year-old should be able vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war or even stand in the elections they are voting in? Is not the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?

Does the Minister agree that, while foreign donations are already illegal and should remain so, steps should be taken to tighten the law to prevent donations from those who are not properly on the electoral roll, including the funnelling of money from impermissible sources? We welcome the U-turn on not scrapping voter ID, but will using bank cards not undermine the security of the ballot box, and what security measures will she bring in now that automatic registration has been announced?

Finally, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the important issue of intimidation in public life? Will the Government still abide by the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties without proper engagement and discussion? And will they stop announcing constitutional policy by press release?

This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed us to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party lost the general election, in the worst general election defeat for decades, so it is no wonder that the Conservatives are scared of the electorate. The truth is that young people deserve to have a stake and have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that he would prefer them to be silenced.

I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman’s party sat in government for 14 years, and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system, despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement. We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices, and protecting Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.

The real question for the hon. Gentleman is whether the Conservatives will finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies. Under the new laws, they will not have a choice, and we will not stop there, because they will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks. We will give the Electoral Commission the power to administer a hefty fine, of up to a maximum of £500,000, to deter bad behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, the hon. Gentleman should be welcoming these changes, and taking the opportunity to finally clean up his party.

We have published the elections strategy, and we have laid a written statement. I have responded in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I will continue to engage with parliamentary colleagues in the coming days, over the summer recess and in the autumn.

We want to make a series of changes, and I am determined to make sure we get as much cross-party agreement as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that there is common ground on a range of issues. He knows all too well the harassment and intimidation, and threats to our lives, that many of us have faced. It is really important that we work on these agendas together.

On moving towards automated voter registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we will carefully consider how we implement those changes to ensure they are done safely, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that. We have retained the voter ID changes made under the previous Government, but we recognise that certain groups of legitimate voters, particularly disabled voters, were excluded. We need to address that gap, and I know his party recognises that challenge, so we will ensure that we do not exclude legitimate voters. I look forward to working with him on issues of common interest and agreement.

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

I thank the Minister for the written statement and for her work behind the scenes.

We should welcome the opportunity for more people to be enfranchised. We should be very clear that one person losing the right to vote at the ballot box is one person too many. It is really important that we look at the issues around voter ID, and ensure more opportunities for people to have other forms of voter ID at the ballot box. It is important that we enfranchise our young people to vote. They participate in public life already, so they should also be entitled to vote.

It is really important to have system where it is easier to be registered to vote. When you move home, before you have even unpacked you get a council tax bill—the council already has your details—so it is good that we are looking at a system to ensure people are registered to vote. For far too long we have knocked on doors and people have said that they are interested but not registered to vote, so that is vital.

On ensuring candidates still feel safe, this is a big challenge and a threat to democracy. Will my hon. Friend outline what work she will be doing with the Electoral Commission on the intimidation and abuse faced by candidates?

Order. We do need questions and answers to be short.

I thank my hon. Friend for her questions; she does important work in her Committee. The changes we are introducing will ensure that elected representatives, candidates, campaigners and electoral staff, who play a unique role in our democracy, are properly protected. We will give courts the power to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates. An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced, allowing courts to pass tougher sentences. We will also remove the requirement to publish candidates’ addresses. We will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We are very pleased that the Government have published the strategy, many aspects of which have the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have, for many years, championed votes at 16 and we are really glad that the Government have listened to those calls. We also welcome the measures to tackle dark and illicit money in our politics, and the recent plans to introduce supplementary voting for mayoral elections.

However, I am concerned that the strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections that has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply does not count. As Members across the House will know, last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in Parliament by the candidate they voted for.

This opportunity cannot be wasted. Will the Government go further? Will they look at scrapping voter ID in its entirety? Will they look at introducing further measures to ensure that foreign oligarchs such as Elon Musk are not able to interfere in British politics, including through party funding? And will they finally scrap first past the post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?

The hon. Lady has a lot of questions. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections. Her party, in the coalition Government, had the opportunity, through a referendum, to campaign and institute the appropriate changes. Our focus is on ensuring we address the manifesto commitments we made, including a voting age of 16. I am grateful to her and her party for their support. We are also taking action to tackle illicit finance and foreign interference. I very much hope that she and her colleagues will work with us on that very important agenda.

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which is looking at the security of MPs, candidates and elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that a wide number of behaviours in our democratic system are intimidating candidates and, indeed, Members of this House, and that that is detrimental to our values and democracy? Will she expand on the measures in the strategy that will seek to alleviate those very serious problems?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In the 15 years I have been a Member of Parliament, we have seen a rise in hatred and hostility towards candidates and elected officials, and have sadly faced the loss of our dear colleagues, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. This Government are determined to ensure that elected representatives, candidates and election officials are protected, because this trend is having a devastating chilling effect on our democracy. We need to work together to protect our democracy while protecting freedom of speech. I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend on the specific proposals as we proceed with their implementation.

I thank the Minister for her statement, but I have not heard her say anything about the work of the boundary commissions for local government and constituencies. I think they should form part of this discussion, particularly to ensure that constituencies can be made up of genuine communities by getting rid of the pointless rule that a constituency cannot go beyond a certain region. Areas of Essex near my constituency, for instance, cannot be included within Romford, which only goes into London. Similarly, local council wards would surely be better if they were one-member wards, whereby they could be like mini-constituencies looking after a particular community. Would that not be a better way forward, and would the Minister consider it as part of the review?

The hon. Gentleman will understand the process and work of the boundary commissions. This strategy is focused on the themes that I spoke to earlier, and that is what we will be focusing on.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this policy paper. I think my hon. Friend the Minister and I were much more poorly equipped to vote when we were 18 than today’s 16-year-olds, so I warmly welcome that measure. I also welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last week, with the Government saying that first past the post

“can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast”,

and that Mayors and police and crime commissioners

“should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors.”

The Government have also claimed that this change will give the local electorate an “increased voice” and will

“better support the democratic mandate of people elected to such positions”.

Given the flawed nature of first past the post, will the Minister consider also reviewing the system for elections to this place?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work with the APPG. He is aware of the policy of the Labour party and this Government on first past the post. I refer him to my previous answer on that question.

Fair elections must be elections that we can all trust. The most important element of our electoral system is that it is a secret ballot and that it should be down to the individual to make up their own mind. I am therefore deeply concerned that the widespread use of postal voting across the country is allowing dangerous fraud with many voters still intimidated and coerced into using postal votes on the instruction of somebody else. The review covers many practical aspects of postal voting, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure the accuracy and honesty of the postal voting system?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party introduced a series of changes, including on voter ID and other checks as electors register to vote. I am all too aware of the areas that need particular focus. We have retained the protections on postal voting. The hon. Gentleman is aware of a number of issues around postal votes, but I reassure him that there are laws to ensure that forgery and personation do not happen. We will retain the appropriate checks and safeguards that were introduced in the past.

May I put on record my profound thanks to the Minister for her personal commitment to ensuring that we renew confidence in democracy? I warmly welcome proposals around moving away from the first-past-the-post system in regional elections and restoring that part of our democracy. Will she outline how she will tackle the illicit finance that is flowing into our democracy? I have real concerns about how foreign influence damaging our democracy and I would be grateful for more information on how this strategy will deliver for our country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in this area. As I mentioned, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into our politics. We are ensuring that the Electoral Commission will have the appropriate powers to support political parties, making sure that they do “know your donor” checks. Where parties fail in this area, a fine of up to £500,000 can be applied. We will apply that fine proportionately in recognition of the resource issues of smaller parties.

I very much welcome what is in the Government’s policy, particularly votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We already have this in Scotland for the Scottish parliamentary elections and I have also campaigned for the change to be made for general elections. Will the Minister confirm that this will be in place in time for the next general election, and how the information will be passed out to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will now be able to vote in general elections?

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We are looking very closely at the work in Scotland and Wales. We want to make sure that we take the time to implement the appropriate changes in time for the next general election, but we will work with the relevant institutions, including the Electoral Commission, education establishments, the Department for Education, charities, youth organisations and other interested bodies to make sure that we get this right.

I welcome the measures to take out dark money from our politics, but they will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations in British politics. They are used for money laundering and to disguise dark money. They have no role in British politics. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will ban cryptocurrency donations?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work in this area through his Committee and for raising these issues. There are already a number of rules in place on political donations and they must be abided by, regardless of the type of donations made—including cryptocurrency donations. Our reforms of political finance to further strengthen our democracy will also apply to all donations, including those in cryptocurrency.

Democracy is fragile and, here in the United Kingdom, our democracy is strongly in the crosshairs of nefarious states including Russia and China, which do not share our values. We are seeing increasing activity online, particularly to distort the outcome of elections, via platforms including TikTok, which have links to communist regimes in China. Can the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken in particular to protect our democracy from misinformation that vehemently seeks to distort the outcome of elections?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He will be aware that the defending democracy taskforce is leading the work on a range of issues—including, of course, in relation to the points that he has made. We are taking action to bear down on those issues, with a cross-Government approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 is important in relation to some of the points that he has made. As I have pointed out, we are also aware of the dangers of foreign interference and foreign state actors, and these reforms are really important to protect the integrity of our system and our democracy.

I thank my hon. Friend for her work to support young people to participate in our democracy. Young people can work at 16, pay taxes and join the Army. There is no reason that they should not have the right to a say in who represents them and the right to shape their future. They are passionate about the issues affecting their communities and country; I know that at first hand from the work I have done over the years to support young people in their leadership journeys and in participating in our elections.

The SNP welcomes that the UK Government are catching up to Scotland, where we have had votes for 16-year-olds for the last nine years. However, it is clear that real change also requires looking at this Parliament’s electoral system. Recent polls have shown that the leading party currently would win a majority of seats in the next election on less than 30% of the vote. Is it not long overdue that this Government reformed the UK Parliament’s broken electoral system and introduced proportional representation, as Welsh Labour is doing in the Senedd?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or local elections.

I welcome this announcement, and I can only speculate about why the Conservatives did not decide to clean up party funding when they were in Government. I want to echo some of the comments about proportional representation. Personally, I feel that it is at the heart of many of the problems the country has faced in recent times. I absolutely accept that proportional representation is not part of the Government’s proposals, but will the Minister keep an open mind and look at how other strong democracies around the world have been able to use PR to both strengthen their democracy and create a more collaborative political culture?

I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on the Labour party’s position: the Government have no plans to change the electoral system. He is of course right that we should always learn from international experience. We are certainly doing that on a range of different agendas, including some of the themes of this strategy, and we will continue to do so.

The Prime Minister has previously talked about extending the franchise to include additional foreign nationals. Will the Government take this opportunity to rule out ever extending the franchise to foreign nationals beyond existing rules?

The focus of this strategy is on eligible voters in this country.

The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has been doing a lot of work on defending democracy. I am sure we will welcome the proposals, particularly on illicit finance and cracking down on unincorporated associations. I gently urge her to look closely at cryptocurrencies, which are clearly the currency of choice for criminals and rogue states. For example, one individual has routed £13 million into political organisations in this country through such a currency.

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about new challenges in relation to crypto, and I refer him to my previous answer on this point. We will look very closely at these issues to make sure that loopholes are closed, but I reassure him that the current powers cover donations through crypto and the changes we are making will also include crypto.

There is lots in the strategy that the Liberal Democrats and I welcome. Could the Minister explain why there is a difference between Westminster elections and combined mayoral elections? We know that the majority of the British public want to see the scrapping of first past the post, and we know from when we had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject during this Parliament that the majority of Members in this place want to see the scrapping of first past the post—indeed, we know that a majority of Labour Members want to see the scrapping of first past the post. So why is there a difference between the different types of elections?

The hon. Member may have critiques of the first-past-the-post system, but it provides a direct relationship between Members of the legislature and local constituencies, which is really important. The Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, had the opportunity to introduce a referendum, but they lost that referendum. The supplementary voting system was implemented on the introduction of both mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. We believe that it is more appropriate for selecting single-person executives.

I declare a former interest as a lawyer specialising in election law. I can say from that previous life that the previous Tory Government left our election law in an unfair and dangerous state: unfair in that they made it harder for people to vote, and dangerous in that they did nothing to prevent foreign actors from spending millions of pounds, roubles or dollars to interfere with our democracy. Does the Minister agree that it is high time to take robust action to make our democracy safe and fair for everyone, and will she assure the House that this will be a speedy and fair process?

I look forward to using the expertise of colleagues—not only in my party but in others—so that we get this right. It is in all our interests to close the loopholes that are so dangerous and damaging for our democracy.

There is much to welcome in these proposals to enhance our democracy, particularly on the safety of candidates. Reform is very much against votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, who, it is interesting to note, are completely split down the middle on this issue. However, I urge the Minister to consider our grave concerns with particular regard to postal voting, its security and the risks of personation. I have seen people carrying bag loads of postal votes to a polling station on election day. Surely that is completely wrong.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take those issues very seriously. Personating another voter is a deliberate act of fraud. It completely undermines our democracy and is a serious criminal offence that will continue to be prosecuted. If he has examples, he should report them to the police.

For 14 years, young people in my constituency were frustrated by politicians who simply did not listen to their concerns on affordable housing, on the climate crisis or on good local jobs. Does the Minister agree that listening to young people and engaging them in the process is a key first step in rebuilding some of the damage done to our democracy over the 14 years of incompetence we saw from the Tories?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for giving young people, from the age of 16, the right to vote and participate in our democracy. Young people are the future, and it is vital that we all work together to ensure that they learn about, and can participate in, our political system and our democracy. That is how we will ensure that our democracy is appreciated and that its value and influence, both in this country and globally, is shared by the next generation.

The Conservative Government seemingly tried to do everything possible to destroy trust in politics and to make it harder for people to vote. In my constituency, that led to just a 49% turnout at the last election. Will the Minister set out more about how the announcement will make it easier for people to engage in our democracy and how the Government will give the next generation a say in the future of our country through giving votes at 16?

It is crucial that we engage electors—both young electors and the millions who are not registered to vote. We will do careful work to move towards automated voter registration and to ensure that it is a success. It is about making sure that every citizen who is eligible to vote registers and is able to vote.

A previous parliamentary inquiry into the funding of Northern Ireland political parties expressed a concern about the lack of visibility on how cross-border parties—the likes of Sinn Féin—manage their fundraising and the difficulty for regulators in verifying that no Republic of Ireland, or indeed US-based, funds were used in UK elections. It recommended stronger audit requirements and a clear separation of cross-jurisdictional finances. Will the Minister assure me that these measures will apply equally across all parts of the United Kingdom and that regulators outside the United Kingdom will work together to ensure that we do not have those cross-jurisdictional moneys?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working through the interministerial group, which includes the relevant Northern Ireland Minister, to ensure that we introduce changes that are consistent with the Good Friday agreement and that recognise specific issues affecting different parts of the United Kingdom? I would be very happy to discuss our proposals further with him.

In Scotland, where we have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in council and Scottish Parliament elections, I have found that some of the most engaging, respectful and searching questions have come from those in that age group, whereas in general elections a 16 or 17-year-old’s response is often, “I’ll go and see if my mum or dad are in”, or occasionally, “My dad’s told me to tell you that he’s not in.” Given how respectful and engaged 16 and 17-year-olds are, does the Minister agree that they should have the right to express that engagement at the ballot box?

I could not agree more. As my hon. Friend says, young people are passionate, engaged and interested in the issues that affect their lives. It is right that they should have the opportunity to participate in our democracy.

According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 60% of the British public now support proportional representation. Given that mayors will be elected under this system from 2027 onwards, why does the Minister refuse even to consider that fairer system so that by the time the next general election comes along, voters will have their views more fully and fairly represented?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on the same question.

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that my experience of being elected under three electoral systems—additional member system, single transferable vote and first past the post—suggests that none of them are perfect? However, there are advantages to first past the post that we should be very careful about doing away with. The other two systems that I have been elected with served my constituents far worse than first past the post does.

Voting for 16 and 17-year-olds was passed by the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago and enabled young people to vote in elections as of 2016 in Scotland. I was delighted to vote for that measure, as were all members of the Scottish Parliament, so will the Scottish Conservatives give a lesson to their colleagues at Westminster about why they voted for it in 2016?

I very much hope that the Scottish Conservatives will join us in supporting votes at 16.

Given that Northern Ireland has been used to photo ID for voting since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I have seen the benefits there of that simple form of accountability. However, difficulty remains with the abuse of the postal vote system. Looking to Northern Ireland as an evidential example of that, does the Minister intend to make changes to ensure that the ability to vote by post is not abused, as it currently is in some parts of Northern Ireland?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am working with ministerial colleagues, including the Northern Ireland Minister, and we are sensitive to the differences in different contexts. I am happy to continue the dialogue with him.

Having spent more than a decade tackling financial crime before I came to this place, I welcome the Minister’s remarks and the strategy on elections, which will protect our hard-won democracy from foreign interference and which also incorporates demands from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, along with asks from the Electoral Commission on political finance rules. Does the Minister expect the forthcoming elections Bill to be in force before the local elections next May? Will company donations be permitted only from firms with UK ultimate beneficial owners? What guidance does she envisage being made available to political parties to fulfil their “know your donor” obligations? On enforcement, does she foresee that the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service will require additional resources to fulfil potential obligations under the forthcoming elections Bill?

My hon. Friend has huge expertise in this area. I am happy to write to him on his specific questions, of which there were a number, but I want to reassure him that we will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission. We want to ensure that the powers the commission is given go hand in hand with the support it provides to political parties on “know your donor” checks and on ensuring that we have put in place the appropriate safeguards.

I welcome this strategy from the Government. Under the previous Government, we saw serious issues with MPs taking thousands of pounds from a Russia-linked entity, despite the Ministry of Defence raising “significant security concerns”. I am concerned that we are still seeing such issues today. We have seen reports of Reform UK taking tens of thousands of pounds from a company whose owner is apparently based overseas. Does the Minister agree that this raises the urgent need to tighten donation rules and protect our democracy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; foreign interference in British politics is a growing danger to our democracy and it is right that we tackle it. Our changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing the loopholes that allow foreign funding to influence our politics and elections. This evolving and sophisticated threat has made it all too easy to funnel illicit money from abroad to political parties, which is why we are introducing these checks. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, in this Parliament.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members of Parliament are accurate in our statements, and I just want some clarity. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned bags of postal votes, but you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Elections Act 2022 and a subsequent statutory instrument—I served on its Committee as the shadow Minister for democracy—people handling postal votes will now be limited to handling no more than five postal votes for elections, plus their own postal votes. Does the hon. Member want to reflect on his statement about people carrying multiple bags of postal votes?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she has notified the hon. Member mentioned.

Obviously, the hon. Member’s point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put it on the record.