Embodied Carbon: Buildings
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The climate crisis is upon us. We in the UK are now in the midst of our third heatwave in less than three months. Communities have endured sweltering conditions that have put huge pressure on our NHS, our infrastructure and our natural environment. Our ambulance service has never been so busy. Tragically, lives have been lost as people have sought relief from the heat in rivers and lakes. Today, we have heard that it is estimated that there were 2,700 excess deaths due to just the May and June heatwaves. In my constituency, dozens of schools have had to close due to overheating. People are sweltering in hospitals, care homes and many other workplaces, and farmers and communities alike are facing critical water shortages.
Extreme heat is no longer an occasional inconvenience, and neither are extreme storms and floods; they are now part of everyday life, and we know that things are getting worse. If we are serious about protecting future generations from climate breakdown, every sector must play its part in reducing emissions. Today I will focus on one sector that is rarely discussed, despite having an environmental footprint unlike any other.
Globally, the construction of buildings contributes more than one tenth of the world’s carbon emissions—around four times the footprint of aviation. Here in the UK, the construction sector is responsible for fully 25% of the UK’s carbon footprint on a consumption basis. The built environment generates one third of the world’s waste—a figure surpassed only by food waste—and consumes nearly half of all the raw materials that we extract from the earth.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving such a thoughtful speech, and for leading this debate. As a chartered surveyor, I advised on some of Scotland’s first carbon-neutral developments. Does she agree that developers purchasing cleared sites often struggle to get the appropriate building research establishment environmental assessment method accreditation, due to shortcuts being taken by the previous owners of the sites during the demolition process?
Dr Chowns
The hon. Member makes an excellent point from a position of great expertise. That is precisely what this debate is about: we need to recognise that we should be reusing buildings as much as possible. We should be reducing the destruction caused by a failure to reuse. We should ensure that regulations are put in place that enable those who are developing, as well as those who have sites and responsibility for them, to take account of the whole life-cycle carbon assessment in deciding how to deal with a building. Let us take the waste hierarchy—reduce, reuse, recycle—into account in the construction sector, which is such a critical part of our nation’s carbon emissions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a very compelling speech about the importance of thinking on a whole-life basis about the carbon in buildings. Does she agree that we should think about the whole-life carbon impact of new buildings, and does her argument support the view that we have an opportunity to design buildings properly, so that they are cool in summer and warm in winter? Aureus school in my constituency is only 10 years old, but is incredibly hot in the summer.
Dr Chowns
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Since I entered this place, I have been campaigning for homes and buildings that are truly fit for the future. We need to take this issue into account when we build and design buildings. We do not want to have to retrofit buildings at huge expense later on. We need to recognise that there are so many opportunities to deal with this at the design stage. The materials that we use in construction play a crucial role in reducing the need for active heating and cooling; they can allow us to incorporate passive elements. Measures to address the embodied carbon of buildings can also play a role in reducing the operational carbon impact of buildings. That is an excellent point, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it.
It is clear that the construction industry has a huge impact on both climate change and biodiversity loss. We rightly spend time discussing how efficiently buildings operate once they are occupied, but we spend remarkably little time discussing the emissions that occur before anybody even walks through the front door of a new building. Those emissions are known as embodied carbon—that is, the greenhouse gases emitted when we extract raw materials, process them into building materials and use them for construction.
According to the UK Green Building Council, embodied carbon accounts for around 20% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions and is expected to account for fully half of the built environment’s emissions by 2035. Bizarrely, though, it has so far been ignored by central Government policy. Building regulations only set limits on a subset of operational emissions. The Government’s new future homes standard ignores embodied carbon and only tackles energy use in new homes, which is a small fraction of the total emissions from the built environment. The standard is silent on material use, construction processes and embodied carbon. These are not marginal omissions—they are large gaps in UK climate policy. The Environmental Audit Committee pointed this out several years ago, as have experts for years and years.
The huge irony is that the construction sector is crying out for UK Government leadership in this area. We know that we have a housing crisis in this country. We need to build more houses—the right houses, in the right place, at the right price—and it is crucial to ensure that when we build, we do so in a way that is genuinely fit for the future, as we have discussed. That means using a whole-life carbon assessment to minimise both operational and embodied carbon emissions. The hugely frustrating thing for the construction sector is that the absence of national regulation in this area is creating more bureaucracy, not less. As a result of the Government failing to provide national direction, local planning authorities are increasingly stepping into the vacuum themselves. Recent research led by the University of Sheffield found that 61% of local planning authorities now reference embodied carbon in their planning policies, and 7% are moving to mandate assessments.
I commend those councils for their ambition—they recognise the urgency of climate action and are taking real, tangible action. However, the consequence is fragmentation. Different authorities are adopting different reporting templates, different thresholds, different assessment requirements and different policy wording. As such, national house builders and developers are being forced to navigate an increasingly complex patchwork of local rules. They have to learn a new set of rules every time they build in a different local authority. Planning officials are duplicating work, and local authorities are developing parallel systems. Everyone is investing time and money in solving the same problem dozens of times over. The Government would not leave local authorities to tackle other aspects that are fundamental to building design, such as fire safety or equality. Those areas have national minimum standards that authorities can build on, so why are carbon emissions not treated the same? Do we not take climate breakdown as seriously as safety or equality?
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. In my constituency, we have the National Glass Centre building—a huge building, built 30 years ago, that unfortunately does not seem viable for its current use any longer. Rather than demolishing that building, as some are seeking to do, the council has been asked to consider article 4, which would remove implied permission to demolish without a full planning inquiry. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the sort of work councils should be doing to make sure that proper scrutiny takes place, and that all possible alternative uses of a building such as the National Glass Centre have been exhausted before demolition is considered?
Dr Chowns
Absolutely. As we have discussed, we should reduce, reuse and recycle; let us make sure that every part of a building is reused in the best way possible. Demolition should be the absolute last resort, so it sounds like the hon. Gentleman’s planning authority is taking the right direction.
Last year, I attended an embodied carbon industry summit, which was held just over the road from this House. At the summit, a simple question was asked of attendees: without Government intervention, will local embodied carbon rules become more consistent or more divergent? The response was absolutely resounding: the rules will continue to diverge without Government leadership. It is clear that national regulation on embodied carbon will reduce complexity for the construction industry, not increase it. It will replace fragmentation with consistency, create a national carbon dataset, and provide certainty for industry, while delivering meaningful carbon reductions. Surely that is exactly the kind of planning reform that this Government should want to achieve.
As the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted in its 2022 report, “Building to net zero: costing carbon in construction”, regulating embodied carbon would be
“the single most significant policy the Government could introduce”
if they wish to tackle the reuse of buildings, the development of low-carbon materials and a reduction in these emissions. Why are we still waiting?
The encouraging news is that the construction sector is not waiting for Government. For more than four years, more than 250 organisations from across the built environment sector have supported a campaign called “Part Z”, named after the various other parts of the building regulations. They have been calling for national embodied carbon regulation. Those companies are not asking the Government to invent something entirely new. Indeed, the same experts who developed “Part Z” have now produced the UK net zero carbon buildings standard, a ready-made framework that provides a practical route to compliance. It builds on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ whole-life carbon assessment methodology, one of the most developed embodied carbon methodologies in the world. These documents could form the basis of future regulatory reporting requirements and, in time, a new approved document. The Government do not need to start from scratch; the construction industry has already done much of the hard work.
Indeed, members of this Government used to be in support of such action. When a private Member’s Bill on embodied carbon was debated in 2022, Jonathan Reynolds, now the Government’s Chief Whip, and previously the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said “We support it”—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not talk about colleagues by their first and second names. We mention their constituencies, and if we are mentioning them, we give them the courtesy of letting them know that we will do so. I say that for future reference, to make sure that it does not happen again.
Dr Chowns
I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand entirely corrected. The aforementioned right hon. Gentleman said:
“We support it. I agree with his proposition that industry would welcome further regulation in this area”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 620.]
He was right then, and that statement is right now, because this is not regulation that industry fears; it is regulation that the construction sector is asking for. Industry is calling for this, because it provides a level playing field, creates local green jobs and boosts investment in lower-carbon materials. Good regulation rewards innovation, provides certainty for investment and gives British businesses the confidence to lead.
The rest of the world is moving ahead in this area. The Netherlands has regulated embodied carbon for more than a decade. The EU requires reporting from 2028 and will have limits from 2030. Türkiye is requiring reporting from 2027. Several US states mandate reporting today. Meanwhile, Britain, despite having world-leading engineers, researchers and designers, risks falling behind. This is not simply an environmental issue; this is an industrial strategy issue. It is a planning reform issue and a housing issue. It is about whether Britain intends to lead or follow.
Today, I ask the Minister for one thing above all else: national leadership. I ask for a clear pathway towards national regulation to measure and reduce embodied carbon, aligned with the direction already being taken by many of our international partners and by many in the construction industry. I ask that embodied carbon is finally recognised within national planning policy, replacing today’s fragmented patchwork with one coherent national approach. I ask the Government to consider using the UK net zero carbon buildings standard as the route to fast-tracking the compliance requirements, finally giving industry the certainty it has been requesting for years. When will the Government finally release their long-delayed circular economy growth plan, which could deal with embodied carbon at its core?
Climate change is not hanging around, as we can see around us all the time, and embodied carbon is only making things worse. We can and must change that. We have the expertise, the methodology and the support from industry. Local authorities are crying out for consistency, and the standards have already been written—the only thing missing is national leadership. I call on the Minister to provide it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for securing the debate, and for the constructive and consistent way in which she has pursued the issue of embodied carbon in buildings. I know that this is an issue of particular interest to her and to many other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson). I am sure that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will continue to press the issue and keep it on the Government’s agenda.
I should make it clear at the outset that the Government agree that action on embodied carbon in new buildings is important. If we are to meet our net zero targets, we cannot just look at energy use in occupation. We recently introduced the future homes and buildings standards, which will ensure that new buildings become zero carbon in operation once the electricity grid has decarbonised. However, we also need to understand the embodied carbon associated with materials, construction, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life treatment. As operational emissions fall, embodied carbon will become an increasingly important part of a building’s whole-life emissions.
I know that the issue of embodied carbon in new buildings has been raised in the House before, and the Government are aware of proposals for embodied carbon assessments, approved methodologies, guidance, and central reporting. The Government recognise the aims behind those proposals: better data, more consistent measurement, greater transparency and, over time, a pathway towards reduction of embodied carbon in the country’s new buildings. Those are legitimate aims. Better measurement is an essential first step, because we cannot reduce what we do not understand. However, embodied carbon is not a single, simple number; it depends on a host of design choices, as well as assumptions about lifespan, data quality, construction methods, and end-of-life treatment. Different assumptions can produce different results for the same building, which is why the Government must be careful in considering whether and how to intervene. In July 2025 we published research from AECOM entitled “The practical, technical and economic impacts of measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings”. It identified opportunities for industry to track and reduce carbon impacts, but it also identified challenges and barriers, including the need for better skills, more consistent methodologies, improved data, and practical tools.
Samantha Dixon
What I will say is that despite those challenges, the Government recognise the excellent leadership already being shown by parts of the sector—which the hon. Member has described—in tackling embodied carbon. Parts of the construction supply chain are already working to measure and reduce whole-life carbon, and we saw that momentum at the conference at the end of last year that the hon. Member mentioned earlier. It was attended by officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, as well as the hon. Member, alongside industry and professional bodies. That summit highlighted both the appetite for action and the importance of consistency, better data infrastructure, and a phased approach to give industry appropriate time to adapt.
The Government also support the work of the Future Homes Hub on embodied and whole-life carbon in new homes. The hub is developing an industry-led approach to reducing embodied and whole-life carbon, including work on voluntary measurement and disclosure, benchmarking, environmental product data, and practical tools for home builders. However, despite those excellent examples—and there will be many more that I have not mentioned—it would be wrong to assume that the whole construction industry is in the same place already for regulation, as is often claimed.
While larger developers and consultancy teams may have the expertise and tools to carry out robust assessments, many smaller builders, local contractors and clients do not. There can also be varied costs in even assessing the whole life or embodied carbon of a project. The Government are therefore taking time to consider the right approach, but taking time does not mean inaction; it means doing the work properly. Rushed policy could lead to inconsistent assessments, poor-quality data, disputes about methodology, and perverse incentives. It could also drive the substitution of materials without proper regard to their safety, quality, durability or cost.
Members will understand that the Government need to consider these issues in the round. We have ambitious housing delivery targets, and we are committed to making buildings safer. A policy that reduces reported embodied carbon, but which undermines safety, increases defects or slows housing delivery, would not serve the public well. In considering our approach, the Government must look at several areas: the methodology, the quality and coverage of data, the capacity of industry, the sequencing between measurement and reduction, and the economic impacts. A hospital, a high-rise block and a small housing scheme will not have the same constraints or carbon profile, and any future framework must recognise this.
Some have raised the role of planning, which can be an important lever. The planning system provides the freedom for local authorities and developers to carry out carbon accounting. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire described, some are already encouraging whole-life carbon assessment, but we must also be mindful of the cumulative demands placed on the planning system.
The Government have recently consulted on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system. The consultation sought views on a revised framework, which would encourage applicants to reuse existing structures and materials, and give substantial weight to proposed development for existing buildings where this improves energy efficiency. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in the summer. Any approach to embodied carbon must be considered alongside wider planning reform to ensure our policy is coherent, practical, and capable of supporting both sustainable development and the delivery of the homes and infrastructure that the country needs.
Samantha Dixon
My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case, and I am sure that Sunderland city council will be listening to what he has said. I endorse his comments.
Building regulations play an important role in setting minimum standards, but when we regulate, we need clear requirements, clear compliance routes and clear enforcement responsibilities. The Government are committed to reducing waste by moving to a circular economy and making significant reductions in carbon emissions. To achieve that, all sectors must play their part. For construction products, this includes increasing the reuse and recycling of products, choosing more sustainable products and improving information about environmental performance. Our construction products White Paper confirms an intention to remain consistent with the EU’s revised Construction Products Regulation where this meets our objectives, thereby protecting supply chains and reducing burdens on UK manufacturers. That extends to environmental aspects.
However, reducing embodied carbon is not just about regulation or planning; product innovation, digital tools, professional training, voluntary disclosure and better design practice will all have a role. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is already taking forward work to grow the market for low-carbon industrial products, with an initial focus on steel, cement and concrete. It has committed to developing guidance for buyers and producers of construction products on embodied emissions reporting, product classifications and green procurement approaches. This guidance will help buyers to identify and compare lower-carbon products, and help producers to market them. That matters for buildings, because the choices made by designers depend on the products available to them and on information that they can trust. Better product-level carbon data can support better building-level decisions, but the two systems need to be aligned carefully rather than developed in isolation.
The materials we use in buildings must be assessed in the round. Lower-carbon products offer real opportunities, but they must also be safe, durable, suitable for their intended use and supported by reliable information. The Government’s work on construction products reform and DESNZ’s work on low-carbon industrial products therefore point in the same direction, and are being developed to work together, with better information, greater confidence and a market capable of supporting both safety and decarbonisation.
Let me be clear about what the Government are not saying. We are not saying that embodied carbon is too difficult to address, we are not saying the Government will have no role to play, and we are not saying complexity is a reason to put this issue in the “too hard” box. However, we are saying that complexity matters; unintended consequences matter; burdens on industry, local authorities and consumers matter; housing delivery and building safety matter; and net zero matters. The right policy must hold these objectives together.
I therefore welcome today’s debate, and the challenge from Members who want the Government to move faster, but responsible Government sometimes means resisting the temptation to immediately reach for a simple answer to a complex problem. The Government’s position is that embodied carbon in new buildings is important. The direction of travel is towards better measurement and reduction. Industry leadership is welcome and necessary, and the Government must take the time to design an approach that is robust, proportionate and deliverable.
Dr Chowns
The Minister has outlined the complexities of regulating in this area as in any other area, and I am glad to hear her say that this does not mean the Government will do nothing. The Government would not say that fire safety is a complex area, and they therefore will not regulate. However, in this area, as I outlined in my speech, hundreds of industry experts have come together to create a framework that the Government could use as the basis for regulating. Does she recognise that so much of the preparatory work has already been done to address that complexity?
Samantha Dixon
I recognise the hon. Member’s point. We are aware of the industry-led Part Z proposal, and setting expectations in this way is one possible approach to addressing the embodied carbon of new buildings. I recognise that there is a great deal of work already taking place across industry, and we are aware that parts of the sector have been coming together to encourage consistency and increase awareness and engagement. We know it is a challenge across the built environment and construction supply chains, and that is why we are considering the next steps very carefully. Ahead of any potential intervention, we want to understand the impacts on the sector. So we have commissioned research to help improve our understanding of the data currently available on embodied carbon, and identify where gaps and challenges lie. We will continue to work with industry, local government, professional bodies, environmental organisations and parliamentarians to consider the right levers for action.
I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I look forward to continued engagement with her and with Members across the House as this important area of policy develops.
Question put and agreed to.
Foreign Interference in UK Politics
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to comment on individual Members without having notified them in advance, but I note my hon. Friend’s comments.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome that the Government have accepted all of the Rycroft review’s recommendations, but as Rycroft himself noted, his terms of reference did not enable him to look at all sources of distortion in our democracy. It does not just come from abroad. In a democracy, every voter’s voice should count equally, but it is clear that billionaires are buying influence. Why will the Minister not set a cap on all donations, so that we can eliminate the corrosive and corrupting influence of big money in our politics?
Samantha Dixon
As I have set out, the Government’s position is that there is a role for financial political donations that have been given in accordance with the rules, to enable British politics to flourish.
Elections: First Past the Post
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for setting out so clearly that this is not an issue that sits on party lines. It is about the fundamental quality of our democracy and the fundamental question: are voters being adequately represented by our system? It is clear that the first-past-the-post system is broken. We have a problem with political trust in this country, and the voting system is part of that.
Why is first past the post broken? It is clearly fundamentally unfair. In general elections, it has generated a two-thirds majority on just one third of the vote; in some local elections, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out, it can generate a 100% majority on just half of the vote. That clearly leaves far too many voters unrepresented, in the sense that their voices are not heard by the people who are elected to hold power and who have influence. That is something we can and must fix, because what principle could be more basic in a democracy than the principle that everybody’s vote counts equally? If we believe in that fundamental principle, we have to recognise the urgency of moving to proportional representation.
First past the post is not just unfair because it leads to completely skewed results; it is also unpopular. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, only just over a third of voters now want to retain the system. Why is that? It is because they perceive how the system is poisoning our politics—how this binary, polarised, winner-takes-all politics means that we do not have the politics that people want.
Time after time voters say to me on the doorstep that they do not want the bear-pit politics they see at Prime Minister’s questions. They want a politics in which people with differing ideas sit around a table, have a decent, grown-up conversation, put all the good ideas into the pot and work out what is best for the country—a politics in which policies are motivated by the public interest, not by party political interests, and certainly not by the choices that so many seem to be forced into in our current system, in which policies are put forward on the basis that they will appeal to a certain small proportion of voters in a certain small proportion of seats at the next general election.
Such short-termism poisons and undermines our politics, which is why voters themselves recognise that it is time for change. A majority of people who support every single one of the five main parties in the UK now say that it is time to shift to proportional representation. A majority across all five parties is a degree of political consensus that we as politicians should listen to.
The next reason why first past the post does not work is that it does not work on its own terms. Back in the day, decades ago, it was argued that first past the post leads to stable government and stability in policy making, but that is completely belied by the experience of our politics, which we have seen year after year, week after week, day after day—indeed, this week. We must recognise that first past the post does not work in a multi-party political system. And we are in a multi-party political system: we are no longer in the old two-party system, and there is no going back to that. We need to recognise that, respond to what voters and the public want, and move forward.
All that is why proportional representation offers the solution. It is the antithesis to first past the post. Where first past the post is unfair, proportional representation is fair, because every vote counts equally. Where first past the post is unpopular, proportional representation is popular, because people recognise that it will ensure that their voices are heard. And it is effective, which is why it has been adopted across the vast majority of OECD countries. This country is an outlier in sticking with tired, old and broken first past the post.
Proportional representation yields politics, a political culture and governance that require people to talk to and listen to each other, and that require us to seek the common ground. Just last week, the House was celebrating the memory of Jo Cox. Her words—that there is more that unites us than divides us—should be a lodestar for all of us in politics, reminding us that we need to work to seek the common ground, emphasise where we can work together, and not be constantly putting ourselves in binary opposition to one another, creating polarisation and deepening our difficulties.
We can change our political culture by adopting proportional representation. It is not a silver bullet to transform every part of our politics, but it will certainly make a key difference.
Gordon McKee
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, and she is certainly right that we have to change our political culture, but I would slightly challenge her. We have a slightly more proportional system in Scotland, but it has not led to a different culture in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government get elected on 30-odd per cent of the vote and pretend they speak for the entire nation, unilaterally. Does the hon. Lady agree that although proportional representation could be part of how we resolve the issue, a wider change in culture is required as well?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions need to be a bit shorter. Thank you.
Dr Chowns
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that changing the voting system will not in itself transform our political culture. We need to do many other things, including get big money and disinformation out of politics, but changing our voting system is a key plank of that.
I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, the Labour party does not feel that it currently has a manifesto mandate to implement proportional representation—I am deeply saddened by that—but it has a manifesto mandate to take strong action to tackle the breakdown of trust in our politics. As a Green, I would like there to be no more elections under first past the post in the UK, but it would be hugely dangerous to go into the next general election under that system, because we face the very real prospect of a Government being elected with a huge majority of MPs and a small minority of votes. That should concentrate the minds of everyone in this Chamber.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
This is quite a serious point. There are people arguing for PR to be introduced before the next general election, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined, but she must accept, as a democrat, that we cannot change the electoral system because we are worried about a certain outcome. We have to look at the bigger picture, take our time and do it right.
Dr Chowns
All the arguments I have made in the last five minutes have been about the systemic, principled reasons for change; they are not views about one particular party. I will be absolutely clear that I hugely fear the prospect of a Reform Government, and I will do everything I can to stop that. It would be hugely dangerous for this country. But the argument for proportional representation is about the representation of everybody, including people with whose views I completely disagree. If they have a degree of support in the country, they should be represented in proportion to that. The point is that under a proportional system, those of us who want to work together for the common good of the country would be able to do so.
The principle of proportional representation is core to the Green party’s DNA. I have campaigned for it for many years, and I welcome the fact that so many in Labour and other parties campaign for it, too. But there are specific things that this Government can do right now. There is a cross-party call for a national commission on electoral reform, which the Government could take forward today. That would enable us to have a national conversation about how to make our democracy genuinely work for everybody, involving citizens’ voices and the voices of those with expertise, who can bring ideas from international counterparts.
We must have that conversation. We cannot stay asleep at the wheel, drifting into ever-more polarised politics, ever-less representation and ever-poorer electoral systems that do not serve the fundamental principle of democracy that we should all hold dear: every vote should count equally.
Several hon. Members rose—
Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)
Ellie Chowns ExcerptsThursday 16th April 2026
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 April 2026 - (16 Apr 2026)
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates.
The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed.
New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people
“employed by or working under the direction”
of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.
Samantha Dixon
Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. As I have set out, the Bill will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 would extend the list of relevant persons to include candidates’ staff and their relatives. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the regime already covers those circumstances. The application of the existing disqualification order and new aggravating factor is based on the motivation behind the offence committed, regardless of precisely who the offence was committed against. For example, if it were found that a relevant offence was committed against a candidate’s relative for the purpose of intimidating the candidate, ultimately the offence was motivated by hostility towards the candidate, and thus a disqualification order or aggravating factor could be applied.
Regarding employees of candidates specifically, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford to the fact that campaigners employed by candidates are already directly protected under the regime by section 34 of the Elections Act 2022. Other employees would be covered indirectly in the same way that I have outlined for a candidate’s relatives. I hope the hon. Member is reassured by that and will consider not pressing the amendment.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Lady very much.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”—(Lisa Smart.)
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Chowns
I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to wade into such a thorny political issue—and an issue where it is important to stay on the right side of what can be said in discussing a proscribed organisation. The Government should use their powers of proscription proportionately, in all cases, and should be able to robustly back up their decision to proscribe an organisation with very clear evidence that is made public. I am on the record many times as saying that.
The police and any authorities that we are asking to implement the law must do so according to the law as it is at the time. At the moment there is a live case where an organisation was proscribed and there are relevant court cases. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that. Over the weekend, arrests were made in relation to that proscription. New clause 3 is about donations to political parties. If an organisation is proscribed—and it is still proscribed—it would fall under the scope of new clause 3, even if there are ongoing legal processes that have not yet concluded.
Dr Chowns
Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.
Lisa Smart
The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a
“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,
I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.
Lisa Smart
New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.
Lisa Smart
We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.
On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.
Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.
On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.
New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.
This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.
New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.
Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.
New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.
On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
‘54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6ZA Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets. Donations or transfers would have to comply with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission in order to be accepted and would be prohibited until the Commission has made such regulations.
New clause 20—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; “Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
Dr Chowns
I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak.
This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.
There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics. Again, as Transparency International points out,
“it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.”
We need to take these warning very seriously.
Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says:
“Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.”
It points out that
“the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”,
and says:
“This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”.
There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.
Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended:
“The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.”
There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards.
I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations. That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto.
It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would
“prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”,
we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber?
It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon. Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?
Dr Chowns
I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details.
If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily. I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word she says about there being a very fine balance between a moratorium and a ban—a ban could, actually, be retrograde—but if we have a moratorium we should at least have a regulatory framework that makes sure that cryptocurrency cannot be moved upstream. Does she share my concern that, despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, and despite consistent pushing for a timescale for the implementation of the Rycroft review, we have not had that? She is therefore right that the Committee is the perfect opportunity to get the ideas of all political parties, and to hopefully get a better idea of the Government response.
Dr Chowns
I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and sense of urgency about getting Rycroft implemented as soon as possible. In the spirit of giving credit where it is due, the Government did commission that review—which was good—the review was quite fast, there was an immediate statement, and the Bill is going through. I do not think that we are in a perfect place.
I would have liked the Bill to have longer in Committee to give the Government a chance to introduce amendments that we could properly scrutinise. It is deeply unfortunate that, for a Bill that is about the workings of our electoral system, we are not able to do that core scrutiny in Committee—the crucial line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, which is the elected Chamber. We are being asked, basically, to take it on trust. It is not that I distrust Government, but it is important to have this discussion now. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
I have made the point about the importance of including in primary legislation the criteria under which any moratorium might be lifted in the future, and that there must be really strong safeguards. I have also made the point that a ban on crypto donations will not itself stop the risk, because of the downstream issues. We have to think carefully about how whatever mechanism is introduced deals with that.
We have already seen that Ben Delo, who has given £4.5 million to Reform in recent months, has said, “Oh dear, since I am going to be hit by this retrospective moratorium I am going to move back to the UK to evade it.” That is clear evidence of gaming the system by a guy who, by the way, was convicted in the US of impropriety in relation to political financing. He was subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump. We have to be really careful of how bad actors might manipulate any legislative proposals that are introduced.
A ban on cryptocurrency will not, in itself, stop the risks. We also need a cap on all political donations—we will discuss a group of new clauses relating to that in a bit, so I will save my arguments on that topic until then—plus a donor register, as I spoke about in Tuesday’s sitting. A donor register with donor registration numbers would address the issue of traceability and address the risk that donations are split into many tiny donations to hide the fact that they are all from the same place. Having to have a donor registration number that is associated with a particular, identified, allowable donor would go a long way to addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Paul Holmes
I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.
The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.
Samantha Dixon
However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.
Dr Chowns
I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, and I recognise that the Government have stated their intention to bring other amendments forward. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government, not necessarily just in formal settings, on the specifics of the issues and concerns I raise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Overseas electors: postal ballots
“(1) RPA 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) After section (12) insert—
‘12A Overseas electors: postal ballots
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision regarding the casting of postal ballots by overseas electors.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for overseas electors to be offered the ability—
(a) to request an electronic version of their ballot paper for elections to print using the elector’s own printing facilities; and
(b) in a relevant country, to return their completed ballot paper to a United Kingdom embassy, High Commission or consulate for onward delivery to the relevant returning officer by diplomatic mail to be counted.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “a relevant country” is one where the United Kingdom maintains an embassy, Hight Commission or consulate.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
5) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
Ellie Chowns ExcerptsTuesday 14th April 2026
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 April 2026 - (14 Apr 2026)
Lisa Smart
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.
New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.
On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to.
Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency. We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses.
I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense? Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns?
Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that
“The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.”
Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward? It would be very helpful in improving transparency and clarity in the system.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will just make some very brief remarks on the record.
I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47.
As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well. I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill.
The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that
“a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.”
There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address. It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.
Dr Chowns
Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements.
I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors. It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.
Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation. That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties.
That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.
Lloyd Hatton
Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.
I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue on the Floor of the House and thank StepChange, through him, for its work. As I mentioned, we will have more to say in this area shortly, but as he will know, the Ministry of Justice is also involved in the issues that he mentioned, so I will work with Ministers in that Department, too.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Council tax is widely acknowledged to be a deeply regressive and unfair tax based on property values that are decades out of date, and the poorest households pay a much larger proportion of their income in council tax than the wealthiest. Rather than consulting just on better ways to collect it, will the Minister instead commit to review and replace this outdated and unfair tax with a system of taxation that is fairer and based on property values?
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Smart
The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.
Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.
New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society.
This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better. Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that.
We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed.
I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right.
I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.
We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.
I want to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.
We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.
There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.
Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is
“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.
That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.
For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.
During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are
“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”
The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that
“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”
She was also right when she said:
“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]
We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.
I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.
Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.
Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.
I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that
“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”
That is the point.
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
There are recommendations covering precisely the points that my right hon. Friend raised. I have accepted the report, in general terms, in full. We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, which I hope will address her concerns.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens?
On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for her and her party’s support for the review. I also thank her for her work on the Bill Committee. She is quite right; we need to make sure that when the amendments come forward, the Bill Committee has sufficient time—and, indeed, that the House has sufficient time—to go through them in detail. I and the Government will respond to each of the 17 recommendations in detail, and I think that that will be the most appropriate time to respond to the question she has raised.
Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)
Ellie Chowns ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 March 2026 - (24 Mar 2026)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)
Ellie Chowns ExcerptsTuesday 24th March 2026
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 March 2026 - (24 Mar 2026)
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.
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.