Representation of the People Bill

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Why don’t you tell your party leader?

[Danny Kruger]

That is our party position.

The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.

It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.

It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently suggested that it was a party that was abusing our electoral system. What I am actually suggesting is that there is abuse of our electoral system through an influential network that applies in these constituencies. That appears to be the case.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the resounding victory of my hon. Friend the new Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in the by-election was a victory for hope over hate? And does he not recognise that he sounds like an extremely bad loser?

[Danny Kruger]

I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot.

It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system.

Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled.

While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics.

I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example.

What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Florence Eshalomi.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Ms Chowns, we only have three minutes left, so I may not be able to come to others. Please be brief.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q Mr Bentley, I was really struck that you said twice in your answers that anything that makes voting easier for people has to be a good thing and should be supported. Mr Stanyon and Ms Yule, do you agree?

Peter Stanyon: Within the bounds of making sure the system is trusted, which goes back to the points that Emily made. Yes, it should be as easy as possible, but that cannot be at the cost of the integrity of the system.

[Dr Chowns]

Q Mr Bentley, having made that statement, do you agree that automatic voter registration makes it easier for people to participate in the democratic process?

Councillor Bentley: Yes, it does, but don’t forget that we have the right not to vote in this country. I make the same point again: we should test that with the public. It is their information we are talking about, and we should test that with them. It does make it easier, yes, but I think it is a question for the public to be consulted on.

[Dr Chowns]

Q To be clear, automatic voter registration is not compulsory voting; it simply makes people more able to vote. It is not forcing them to vote at all, so it would be a mistake to conflate the two.

Councillor Bentley: It is not, but you are automatically taking their data, and I think you need to ask permission for that.

[Dr Chowns]

Q Voter ID has clearly made it harder for people to vote—tens of thousands of people have been prevented from casting their vote in recent years—and it was introduced on the basis of virtually no evidence of cases of personation. Do you agree that the cost to people’s capacity to participate in the voting system from the introduction of voter ID far outweighs its argued benefits, and therefore there should be no voter ID requirement?

Councillor Bentley: Perhaps I should answer that first. It should be no problem to prove who you are—if you want to vote and take part in the democratic process, why shouldn’t you? I happen to vote by post, but if I did not, I constantly carry a driving licence, or I could find my passport. If you do not have either of those, what should you have? You can apply for a voter authority certificate from your local authority. I do not see harm in doing that, and I think it keeps everyone safe when they go to the ballot station and makes sure that the person voting is the person entitled to vote.

[Dr Chowns]

Q Thank you. Mr Stanyon, are you concerned about the effect of voter ID on the exclusion of people from voting?

Peter Stanyon: Yes, but I think the system in place has been developed to allow voter authority certificates and the like to be there to provide a safety net for those individuals. This is a difficult one for me to answer, because it comes into a policy area and involves personal views. The crucial bit from an administrative perspective is that whatever system is there for voter ID provision has to be smooth for the voter, and that could definitely be improved with the introduction of digital ID, for example.

[Dr Chowns]

And—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for their efforts in getting here this morning.

Examination of Witness

Vijay Rangarajan gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have eight minutes, so short questions and short answers, please.

[Dr Chowns]

Q I would like to ask your view on several things under the heading of political finance and disinformation. On political finance, could you comment on the benefits of a ban on crypto donations, on the potential benefits of a cap on individual donations, and on the potential benefits of an annual spending cap—not just a cap on spending during the regulated period—to avoid gaming of the system? On disinformation, do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation?

Perhaps you could comment on proposals for an advert repository and for a ban on deepfakes. Do you think that a ban on deepfakes needs to operate not just during the regulated period, but also outside it?

Dr Garland: I will address those questions in that order. On crypto, yes, we would support a ban, or at least a moratorium, because there are many risks with crypto. They mirror the same risks in political finance across the board, but crypto is moving quicker than our regulations are keeping up, so we would very much support that being looked at.

On a donations cap, we are very out of step with most other European democracies, and comparable democracies, in having no ceiling at all on donations. That is a huge risk area and speaks to the risk around foreign donations as well. There is also a huge risk in how the public view our political finance regime. We heard earlier that confidence is pretty low. People see that millionaires have more influence in their democracy than they do, because we have moved so swiftly to an era where there are many multi-million pound donations. Having no ceiling at all is a risk, so I would very much support a donations cap. That can be supported by spending limits all year round, because quite often, the campaign does not limit itself to the regulated period. I would support that.

I would say that deepfakes are probably something for the other people you will be hearing from this afternoon; we have not looked at that area in detail. We have looked a lot at the imprints regime, and although I am very supportive of extending the imprints regime, it does not tell voters everything. An ad library would mean that we can increase transparency for voters, and enable them to see things such as who is paying for the ads and who they are targeted at. Often, that can highlight misinformation as well, so I would strongly support the amendment about an ad library.

[The Chair]

A short question from you, Mr Rushworth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I do not think that that was part of Ms Murray’s question. Ms Jones, would you like to add anything?

Karen Jones: The experience in Wales is, I think, similar to what Malcolm just outlined for Scotland. We had small numbers—I am talking about very small numbers indeed—of people who turned up at polling stations without the correct ID, but with the passage of time, people will become more familiar with what is required. In devolved elections, we are seeing that people think they need to bring ID, so it does not present a problem in the devolved elections because people are over-providing rather than under-providing information.

[Dr Chowns]

Q I would like to return to the question of your experience of having the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and particularly to the topic of political literacy. You have given a few examples of work there. What conversations are happening nationally to ensure maximum co-ordination and investment in supporting political literacy, particularly with the extension of the franchise? Is there anything further you would like to say on that? Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently addresses the issue, and what lessons can be learned for supporting political literacy among over-18s as well? Is there more to be done in that space, and what has your experience been in that arena?

Robert Nicol: Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place.

The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.

The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process.

Malcolm Burr: It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically.

As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that.

As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer.

Karen Jones: I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.

[Sam Rushworth]

Q One of the key arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 and allowing English 16 and 17-year-olds to have the same voting rights as their Scottish counterparts is that it increases turnout. Is there evidence from Scotland showing a higher turnout among 16 and 17-year olds?

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I will use the last minute to squeeze Dr Chowns in.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q You both mentioned disinformation. Do you think the Bill does enough to tackle disinformation? Are there additional measures that are not yet in the Bill that you would welcome—for example, a real-time repository of online adverts, or further measures to tackle online disinformation? I am open to your suggestions.

Harriet Andrews: For me, part of that democratic education piece would include support for young people to engage with disinformation. A really important part of preparing them is preparing them to engage with that work on disinformation. Also, as I said at the very beginning, we need to think about where the sources of information for young people are. I worry that if we focus too much on just, “We need young people to be educated about how to engage with disinformation,” and we do not try to create places they can go to that are trusted sources of information, we are putting a huge amount of pressure on young people to deal with a really complicated information landscape.

[The Chair]

You have 20 seconds, Dr Mycock.

Andy Mycock: I would think very strongly about how political parties can play their role in terms of connecting with young people. Young people’s membership of political parties is at an all-time low, as it is in trade unions and other organisations. The fact that you are engaging is commendable, but political parties need to do much more.

Those who are opposed to votes at 16 need to think about the unequal situation where young people in Scotland and Wales now have voting rights that young people in England and Northern Ireland do not. If the argument is about citizenship, there is an inequality with the voting age being 18 for the majority, but not for others. Moreover, there is a need for—

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

Q Can I go on to the issue of online attacks on candidates, their families and people involved in elections? Social media platforms play a massive role in the distribution of things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes. Is there more that the Bill could do to put a requirement on social media platforms to act more swiftly to address those issues?

Chris Morris: My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways.

Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory.

As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media.

One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing.

Azzurra Moores: Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed.

While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.

[Dr Chowns]

Q Thank you both for your work. You have made a powerful case for the danger of not better regulating disinformation. Can you share any lessons observed from how other countries have perhaps done this better? We have talked about the proposal for a repository of digital adverts. We have talked about deepfake labelling. What about other forms of disinformation, such as bot campaigns?

Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation?

Azzurra Moores: There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the amendment paper, that is new clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington.

Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step.

I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that.

On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that.

We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”

[The Chair]

You have 10 seconds.

Chris Morris: To add to that, Full Fact first put forward the idea of a critical election incident protocol in 2022, and really nothing has been done. The problem we have is that there are plenty of people working on this behind the scenes—the joint election security preparedness unit and the defending democracy taskforce—but it is all very much being done in the shadows. This is not always a case of democracy dying in darkness; this is about democracy under threat in the bright blue backlit light of a million scrolling phones.

That is the scale of the challenge we are facing now. It is not just about making sure we have an electoral framework that is fit for purpose; it is about making sure that there is a public perception that it is fit for purpose. That is why the issue of transparency is so important. If there were to be a major information incident—by that, we mean in the last days of the campaign, clear evidence emerging of a concerted attempt to alter the course of the outcome of an election in some way or another—the more transparent and public the process is for revealing that, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q I have a very quick final question, taking a step back and responding to what you have just said. You feel that in the current landscape no single law enforcement body has overarching responsibility for enforcement, and particularly enforcement of electoral finance laws. It feels a bit patchwork at the moment: sometimes it is the police; sometimes it is the commission. Do you feel that is something that we need to look at overhauling so that we can have a much more comprehensive response that works more robustly, and hopefully more swiftly, in response to the issues that you just mentioned?

Dr Susan Hawley: We really welcome the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—published today—that there should be a specific unit. I think that there is growing recognition within law enforcement bodies that that is required. Up to now, the problem has been that those law enforcement bodies will argue that they do not have the laws or the sentences that would empower them to use the serious investigative tools that they have at their disposal to get to the bottom of some of this behaviour. That is why the criminal offence in section 54 and section 54A really needs to be looked at. We welcome the amendment recently tabled by Matt Western to address the knowledge test so that it is not set too high.

We also need to look at sentences because we hear again and again from law enforcement that if you do not have a serious crime-level sentence, you cannot use the skills that you can deploy for serious crime for this kind of offending. If we are talking about foreign interference, those are the tools that need to be deployed against impermissible donations.

[Dr Chowns]

Q You have answered many of the questions that I had. Thank you all for your work. Briefly, do you have a view on where the cap on political donations should be, or how it should be set? That is a question for each of you. And should we have a cap on annual spending, to get away from the gaming of the system around regulated periods that Dr Power referred to? Where should it be set, and how?

Duncan Hames: We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt.

We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent.

Dr Power: I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have.

What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill.

On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of witness

Samantha Dixon MBE MP gave evidence.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve.

Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people.

Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18.

Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over.

The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.

[David Simmonds]

On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

[Dr Chowns]

I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development.

The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament.

If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.

[Warinder Juss]

I want to reiterate what the hon. Member has said. In my experience, the younger the person the more politically engaged they appear to be. I spend so much time going into schools, and I find that younger people are more concerned about the environment than anyone else. I have more emails and letters from schoolchildren about climate change than I have from anyone else. So it is really important that we take that political engagement on board and give them a right to vote at 16.

[Dr Chowns]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we need a proportional voting system so that everybody’s votes are equally taken into account. That would enable us to make policy in a way that focuses more on the longer term and the investments we should make on a generational basis, rather than people, under the first-past-the-post system, being so focused on short-term decision making and on the next general election. Young people are concerned about what sort of world they will inherit—what the world will be like when they are 50—and they are going to have to live with the decisions we make for a very long time.

I want to speak briefly about trust in politics. Giving young people votes at 16 tells them that their voices, votes and views are valued, and this really does matter. The 2024 British social attitudes survey, conducted after the general election that year, recorded a new low level of trust, with only 12% of people saying they trust Governments to put the interests of the country above those of their own party. Votes at 16 would be a really valuable sign of trust in and respect for our young people, which is a healthy and important part of defending and bolstering our democracy. At a time when division and polarisation are unfortunately flourishing, it is vital to work with and support young people to make their voices heard, because they do want to bring the country together.

There is positive evidence for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. For example, younger voters in Germany have had a positive impact on family discussions of politics. In a number of countries, 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote. As has been mentioned, it is also the norm for many voters in the UK. Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds are already enfranchised to vote in devolved and local elections, and I would love those in England and Northern Ireland to have the same rights.

In conclusion, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would not drastically change the electoral landscape, but it would allow young people to have a voice in the decisions that are made for them every day at local, regional and national level. It is also a golden opportunity to improve democratic education, which I believe we will have a chance to discuss that in more depth later in our line-by-line scrutiny, as well as to register young people to vote and to embed that deep democratic respect for the right to vote. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward. Lowering the franchise is a really important opportunity to nurture more active citizens for the future. I will be absolutely delighted to vote for clause 1, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so we can positively engage the next generation in politics and improve the health of our democracy.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.

We are coming at this debate in the wrong way. We need to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary age at which it is acceptable to vote. The last Labour Government obviously thought that people become adults at 18. I remember that some people in my school year could buy cigarettes, at 16, and the last Labour Government raised that to 18. I would have supported that at the time, but the last Labour Government’s principle was obviously that adulthood started at 18 rather than 16.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, said that someone can join the Army, RAF or Navy at 16. That is true, but they cannot be deployed on the frontline. A consequence of the Bill could therefore be that somebody can vote for a party or a Prime Minister of this country, which then, heaven forbid, has to send troops to the frontline, where they themselves cannot go, even though they are theoretically voting to send other people there. That is a difficult and challenging situation. We need to look at other age limits, whether for smoking, going to the frontline or driving. They all need to come at the age that someone becomes an adult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I rise to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and to oppose clause 2 stand part.

New clause 9 seeks to extend voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of four years or less. That is the sentence length at which a prisoner would traditionally have been eligible for release after serving half their sentence. Extending the franchise to more people in prison would widen civic participation, strengthen our democracy and aid rehabilitation.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I just want to clarify my understanding of the Green party’s policy position. I have been looking at the Sentencing Council guidelines, and typically a person convicted of racially or religiously aggravated assault serves two years in prison. Is it the Green party’s position that those people should be allowed to vote in a general election?

[Dr Chowns]

I have made my position about the new clause clear, but perhaps this is a good moment to discuss a point that I was going to come to later. Various points have been made about the importance of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a punishment for something that somebody has done wrong. There is a wide variety of things that people may have done wrong and for which they are rightly imprisoned, but should we not use the opportunity of a person’s imprisonment to support, encourage and reward prosocial behaviour?

Voting is prosocial behaviour that helps to integrate and rehabilitate the person and connect them back to the society from which they have become estranged through their crime. We encourage prisoners to use libraries to engage in educational opportunities and a whole range of other prosocial activities. In the same way, should we not encourage prisoners to engage in voting?

[Andrew Lewin]

I am grateful for the tenor of the debate. The hon. Lady talks about the connection to society, but I ask that she considers the victim for a minute. Let us stick with my example. Very sadly, we are seeing cases of religiously aggravated assault rising in this country, particularly relating to the Jewish and Muslim communities. Just this week, we saw the horrific example of the attack on ambulances. What does she think will happen if the victim learns that the perpetrator of the crime is allowed to vote? Does she think that is right?

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I am disappointed by his tone and what appears to be a politically motivated attempt to score points rather than to engage with the substance of the debate, which is about whether prisoners should be encouraged to vote.

Whether somebody is a victim of a racially aggravated assault, a rape or any other horrific crime, if the perpetrator receives a sentence that comes within the framework of the new clause—I very much hope that it would not be less than four years for a serious crime—we should encourage that perpetrator to participate in voting in the same way as we encourage prisoners to participate in other prosocial behaviours. That is done very widely in many other countries. Imprisonment is the punishment to the individual. The question is whether we should prevent those individuals from engaging in rehabilitative behaviours that reconnect them with society.

[Warinder Juss]

I am a member of the Justice Committee, and my biggest focus is rehabilitation and resettlement. I take the hon. Lady’s view that rehabilitation is extremely important, and that that is the way that we stop reoffending. But as someone who grew up suffering a lot of racist abuse—physical and verbal—I would be very affronted if somebody who had committed a racial crime against me was then allowed to vote, because going to prison is not only about rehabilitation but is a punishment. It is important that we do not lose sight of that fact. I am stating my personal position, bearing victims in mind. If somebody had committed a racial crime against me and they were given the same right to vote as anybody else I would feel very insulted.

[Dr Chowns]

I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.

By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.

Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.

Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped

“in a cycle of disadvantage”.

The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced

“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.

She also found that

“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”

I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.

It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.

There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.

There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.

I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.

[Dr Chowns]

As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.

As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it

“requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education”.

Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.

New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.

The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.

Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.

I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.

We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, would require the Government to publish a report regarding steps to support the implementation of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, discussed on Second Reading. The report would cover proposals to increase awareness of the franchise change among 14 to 17-year-olds and changes to civic education for that age group, to support the franchise change. That report would be required to be published within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act.

As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, extending the franchise is not simply “job done”. The Government are clear that young people must be supported and prepared to exercise their democratic rights. The new clause was clearly designed to ensure that the Government are as good as their word on this point, and it is excellent to see that hon. Members share our view on the importance of effective democratic engagement and education in delivering votes at 16. However, while the intention of the new clause is laudable, the Government do not believe that this is the right way to approach it.

On the part of the new clause concerning voter awareness, the Government will be playing an active role in this space, but will not be the only organisation to do so. The Electoral Commission, local and devolved governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations will all be part of a team effort to spread awareness. A report from the Government on their proposals would be a partial picture at best. It would also not be right for the Government to speak on behalf of other organisations’ plans, particularly those from the Electoral Commission, whose independence from the Government is crucial.

Regarding the education-related limb of the new clause, last November the Department for Education committed to making citizenship compulsory in primary schools and to publish revised programmes of study to ensure all pupils receive a grounding in topics including democracy, government and law. It is for the Department for Education to lead this work; I have worked alongside colleagues in the Department, and I know they will be diligent in providing updates on the progress of its work.

[Dr Chowns]

I am sorry; I may have misunderstood, but is the Minister arguing that she does not support new clause 44 because a range of organisations will be taking part in action to raise awareness of the extended franchise and, therefore, it would not be right for the Government to provide a report only on what they were doing? That is not my reading of new clause 44, which asks the Government to do a report on proposals overall to support raising awareness and civic education. By definition, the Government are probably best placed to have that overview of all proposals, including their own, and those of the Electoral Commission and any number of other organisations, so that we can understand what is being done to support young people as they take on this new democratic responsibility.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that such a report would be partial; it would only cover the work that the Government are doing and we could not speak to other organisations and their work in this arena.

[Dr Chowns]

My reading of the clause is that it does not have to be partial: it calls for a report on all proposals. Therefore, perhaps the Government’s interpretation of the new clause is unnecessarily narrow. Might the Minister commit to going away and reflecting on whether this could actually be compatible and a helpful contribution to supporting the civic education of young people?

[Samantha Dixon]

This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister’s main objection to new clause 44 is that it is for a one-off report. Would the Minister support an amended new clause that would require an annual report looking at the effectiveness of civic education for young people?

[Samantha Dixon]

I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.

[Dr Chowns]

It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the Electoral Commission itself says:

“Automated voter registration has the potential to significantly improve levels of accuracy and completeness of the registers and help ensure people can vote in future elections… Significant progress should be made on implementing forms of automated registration before the next UK general election… Pilots in Wales last year show how effective automatic registration can be.”

I am a little worried that, inadvertently, a false impression of the opinion of the Electoral Commission has been given.

[Lewis Cocking]

I am arguing that if we are going to do automatic enrolment, it should be for everybody, all at the same time, across the country. As I have pointed out, one could do pilots within council areas, as long as everyone in the whole area is being enrolled at the same time. I have given a number of examples.

In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have two registration authorities, so it could be that at a general election some people within the same constituency are auto-enrolled while others are not. I do not believe that is fair. I said at the start of this that I think the current arrangements for registering to vote in this country are perfectly fine, and that people have a choice to register or not. If someone says, “I do not wish to register to vote,” that is their choice. That is up to the individual.

[Dr Chowns]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will cite once more evidence from the Electoral Commission, which does not agree with him that the current system is fine. The Electoral Commission says that evidence from its research shows that

“as many as 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered to vote”.

That is a huge proportion—a huge disenfranchisement. The Electoral Commission says:

“Introducing more automated forms of registration would remove barriers to voting and make it easier for people to register and vote.”

Does the hon. Member not think we should listen to the Electoral Commission?

[Lewis Cocking]

Some of those 8 million people may have chosen not to be on the electoral roll. Would the hon. Lady like to stand in a constituency where half of her electors are auto-enrolled and the other half are not? What are the consequences of that if the election is very close? Will it be taken through the courts?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Chowns]

On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. As I am a relative newbie in this House, could you clarify why it is permitted for a request to be made to vote individually on a range of grouped clauses, when everybody is voting exactly the same way on them, such that we have had five separate votes, all of which have gone the same way, and we are about to have four more? Is it possible to stop the waste of time?

[The Chair]

As Chair, I am completely in the hands of the Committee. Amendments and clauses are grouped to reduce the time taken—it is an administrative thing—but if anybody on the Committee wishes a vote to be taken separately, they are perfectly entitled to request that. I can give no better reason than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said the words, from a sedentary position, “It is time-wasting.”

[Dr Chowns]

Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I do not object to voting on any of these clauses; I am simply pointing out that there is a more time-efficient way to do it.