Green Party — partytracker.uk

142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
Ballot secrecy is extremely important. The shadow Minister has talked about family voting. I am deeply disappointed and concerned by the implicitly discriminatory accusations made by some parties in relation to family voting in recent weeks. I wish we saw as much passion about the far greater threat to our democracy posed by the skewing effect of huge donations. Conservative members of the Committee made no contribution in the discussion on caps on donations or limits on expenditure earlier this afternoon, but have devoted considerable airtime to this particular topic. I ask all of us to consider: what is the greatest threat to the integrity of our political system?
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I think that I have made my point. Let us consider what the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy is. I am concerned about the ways that concerns such as those articulated in these amendments have been weaponised by some political actors, so I will abstain if they are pressed to a vote.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
On a point of order, Sir Desmond. The House will note that I did not accuse anybody in particular of weaponising an issue. I observed that the issue had been weaponised.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I am going to rise above the party political aspects of the shadow Minister’s comments, but I want to engage with his extraordinary claim that communicating with people in their mother tongue is, in some way, exploitation. He expressed concern about the inclusion of diverse communities in our country. He talked about social cohesion, but what he is proposing is essentially a nativist policy. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Gaelic speakers are accepted but Urdu speakers are not. I fundamentally disagree. Of course, as a country we should provide support to assist people to learn English, but we should not force them, as the shadow Minister argued. If they are not yet fluent, it seems perfectly reasonable—in fact, clearly helpful for inclusion and participation—to provide election materials in the language in which they can be best understood. Indeed, that is what returning officers do. Election officers provide information in multiple languages, so why should parties and candidates not also be free to do so? Let me quote from the guidance for returning officers on the Electoral Commission’s website: “Some voters may need assistance in another language because of their limited English (or English or Welsh) language skills. You should consider what support you are able to provide to those voters in your area, such as providing translations of the polling station notices.” In Gorton and Denton, the polling station provided information in multiple other languages. The effect of the new clause would be exclusionary and discriminatory, and I strongly oppose it.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the making of any political argument that he disagrees with is exploitation. That is ridiculous. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), proposes creating a new offence of misleading the public by candidates in a parliamentary election campaign. We are witnessing a proliferation of disinformation with a concurrent rise in distrust among the public. A recent survey by Ipsos MORI found that just 11% of the UK public trust politicians to tell the truth. That is clearly problematic and, unlike in advertising, finance or medicine, there is no legally enforceable standard of requiring truthfulness from those who hold or seek public office. Ministers are not allowed to lie, but, under the current situation, candidates can. This lack of accountability does, unfortunately, create an incentive to deceive. As the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. This legal vacuum has, unfortunately, enabled far-right figures to weaponise disinformation. It has enabled foreign powers to covertly manipulate elections and policy, and manipulation of voters through false factual claims has changed the landscape of the nation. There are already examples of that, including Brexit and campaign tactics in previous elections. New clause 59 aims to protect voters from political deception by holding parliamentary candidates accountable for acts intentionally designed to mislead the public or manipulate voting in their favour. A similar measure is already provided for in the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That creates a new offence of misleading the public, which will cover public officials. The parallel measure in new clause 59 will ensure that candidates are included in a similar provision and cannot use deliberate deception to win public office. As it happens, the Welsh Government have recently introduced equivalent legislation to create an offence of deliberate deception by candidates. Westminster would not be acting alone, and the new clause would provide consistency across Britain. This would not be a law to punish genuine mistakes, misspeaking and so forth, or to restrict legitimate political rhetoric. It would not cover manifestos, as a manifesto is a statement of intent. It would not create a new area of law, but merely extend it to plug the gaping loophole of political deception by applying existing legal principles. The new clause includes safeguards to ensure fairness, such as a high legal threshold for wrongdoing and a defence for those acting with reasonable excuse. Its phrasing ensures that the threshold for wrongdoing is high. It applies only to conduct that is “seriously improper,” so it targets deliberate misinformation campaigns, major false claims that could influence voters and manipulative or dishonest campaign tactics that are falsely used to steer voters towards a particular decision. There is overwhelming public support for this measure. A petition on this issue has more than 200,000 signatures, and polling by Opinium shows that 72% of voters support it. Further research by Survation found that a majority of voters in every single party is in favour of it. This measure would go some way to help repair trust in our politics, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I will briefly speak to new clauses 61 to 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). New clause 61 would introduce a code of conduct for political campaigning and put that on a statutory footing. There is already widespread agreement that we need a code of conduct for political campaigning—that was a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference last year. The Government have committed to establishing a code of conduct for campaigns following that recommendation, and the Electoral Commission has absolutely welcomed this. I draw colleagues’ attention to one of the evidence sessions at the Speaker’s Conference last year, in which Labour’s executive director of governance and legal highlighted the question of whether the code of conduct should be statutory. He said: “A code might be helpful in setting a public benchmark of acceptable behaviour…ultimately, you would probably want it to be enforceable in some way, and then the question would be, is it appropriate to put that on a statutory footing? Is there a possibility of agreeing something?” I ask the Minister to consider that we have an excellent opportunity to put it on a statutory footing in this Bill to ensure that that code of conduct, which is so widely recognised as being absolutely necessary as per the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference, has the force of primary legislation behind it. New clause 62 is about an electoral advertising code of practice. We have already discussed issues relating to electoral advertising, and I have shared with the Committee my huge concerns about the regulation of online political advertising in particular and the urgent need for a real-time political adverts library. This new clause is more general. It is frankly unclear why ads for commercial products are held to greater account than ads that move votes and affect election outcomes. Fundamentally, that seems weird, unequal and deeply problematic. The organisation Reform Political Advertising has been campaigning very effectively, long and hard, in this area. In the 2024 London mayoral election, for example, it trailed a factual accuracy code, which seven London mayoral candidates, including Sadiq Khan and the Green and Liberal Democrat candidates, signed up to, and others supported. International precedent also exists. Regulation of factual claims in electoral advertising has been in place in New Zealand for several decades, with cross-party support.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very next new clause on the selection list, which engages with precisely that question. In addition to New Zealand, there are similar rules about the regulation of political advertising in Australia. On the question of who will adjudicate, there is currently no independent body with the power to adjudicate on the truthfulness or accuracy of non-broadcast political advertising. That is an issue. Provision has been made in the new clauses for a separation: the code of practice would be established by the Electoral Commission and the oversight of the decision making—the adjudication—would be done by a different body. The 2020 report by the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, called for a regulatory committee on political advertising that would involve relevant experts from the Advertising Standards Authority, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority, who would co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties would then work with those regulators to develop a code of practice, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum. The Lords Committee recommends that that regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of the code, and that is effectively what new clause 63 would put in place. “What then would happen about sanctions?” I hear hon. Members ask. Well, that takes us on to new clause 64, which again creates a separation. It would establish an enforcement framework and enable the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions for breaches of the advertising code, basically according to a ladder of increasing seriousness. I warmly recommend the new clauses to the Government and the Committee. Despite the rapidity of my speech, given the shortness of time, the way that advertising can distort our politics is a crucial issue. I very much hope that the Government will warmly consider the issues, alongside all the other ones that they will hopefully come back to us on at a later stage.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission’s instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—a capacity that the Electoral Commission previously had, which was removed by the Elections Act 2022. We currently have a bizarre situation where any individual or organisation other than the Electoral Commission can make a private prosecution against breaches of political finance law but the Electoral Commission cannot. That gives rise to a criminal enforcement gap, which is not helped by a lack of investigatory and prosecutorial lead capacity, especially for UK-wide offences. Other similar regulators in the UK can bring criminal proceedings in areas under their auspices, so there is a real question: why not the Electoral Commission? I note that Philip Rycroft dealt with that question in his report and recommended an alternative approach. I have tabled the new clause as a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide more clarification. If we are not going to give these powers to the Electoral Commission, who should take the lead? The status quo is clearly not working. There is an alarming lack of prosecution in this space, going back quite a number of years. The net effect is essentially that people can escape from prosecution. If it is not going to be the Electoral Commission, we need much more investment in the capacities and powers of the police. I understand that we have a situation where the police might not feel that investigations are necessarily in their interest, because the fines that can be charged are not proportionate to the huge amount of police time that might be required to investigate the issues. I would like to hear from the Government how they will address the clear gap in the capacity of the system overall to initiate criminal proceedings on breaches of electoral law. An obvious solution would be to put it through the Electoral Commission. I recognise that Philip Rycroft has a somewhat different view. Will the Government please explain their view?
Hansard source
16 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 75 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Hansard source
15 Apr 2026ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Cost of Heating Oil
I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)
It is great to see you in the Chair today, Ms Jardine. I oppose clause 1 and its many implications for justice. It takes away the defendant’s right to elect a trial by jury for all either-way offences, which, according to the Bill’s impact assessment, will reduce jury trials by half. That is no minor thing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that clause 1 must be removed from the Bill, as well as clauses 2 to 7, which we will debate later. Compared with the removal of half of jury trials, there would be a highly contested and—in the Government’s own estimates—much smaller impact on efficiency in the courts. There is also the potential for the workload in the magistrates court and the Crown court to increase beyond what is estimated. As Emma Torr from APPEAL highlighted during our oral evidence session, this will include new allocation processes and new multi-step processes for considering appeals, and the need for judges to spend time outlining reasons for their decisions, which juries do not have to do. The chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales also told us about the impact on confidence in the system, stating: “Overall, the jury system is seen as the only part that still works, so why are we focusing on that? We want to focus on all those aspects that will reduce delays now, rather than hacking at a constitutional cornerstone, which also reflects community participation.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 40, Q72.] This cutback in jury trials is not the measure promised to victims of sexual and domestic violence in the Labour manifesto, and later we will consider amendments that would what was promised. This cut is not a measure that will, under the current system, help victims through more compassionate and better trained court processes, or by improving outdated buildings where they currently risk contact with their abusers. The lack of legal support for magistrates court processes could, as we heard from the head of JUSTICE, lead to more victims being cross-examined by their own abusers. We heard clearly from the leaders of the circuits that those working in criminal justice day in, day out have not yet been able to employ the real efficiencies that could come with more investment and innovation, and that would bring down the backlog without the measures in the clause. Those include the better user of technology, more sitting days, blitz courts and improvements at the investigation stage. I believe that we must act on the backlog, but that must start with those measures and the increased investment that is needed to correct what the chair of the Bar Council told us about investment under successive Governments. She said: “We saw a rapid cutting of MOJ funding between 2009-10 and 2022-23: it declined by 22.4%. We are about 30% below where we should be.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 41, Q75.] The main point I want to express today is my concern about the motivation behind the choices that the Government have made in these proposals by taking up, and deviating from, the recommendations of the independent review of the criminal courts in a particular way, and about how the severe erosion of the principle of jury equity can apply to certain types of defendants and certain offences in a way that I suspect this clause is aimed at. That really eats away at a constitutional cornerstone in a truly historic way. It eats away at the principle of jury equity. We know that jury trials are more often chosen by black and other minority defendants, and that public confidence in a jury of their peers to see through institutional biases is real. We know that defendants whose crimes have been protests, motivated by the public interest and committed to expose or impede powerful corporate or corrupt organisations and practices, also feel this way. Tim Crosland’s oral evidence on behalf the campaign group Defend Our Juries, which was set up before this Bill was proposed in anticipation of an attack on jury trials, told us about key recent protest cases where juries have chosen acquittal and applied the principle of jury equity in practice. Those included: “In April 2021, the Shell six, who had spray painted “Shell Lies” on Shell headquarters, were acquitted by a jury. In January 2022, the Colston four, who toppled the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury. In November 2022, members of Palestine Action, who had defaced Elbit Systems—suppliers of drones to the Israel Defence Forces—were acquitted by a jury. In January 2023, members of Insulate Britain were acquitted by a jury for blocking roads.”––[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2026; c. 89, Q192.] Tim Crosland told us how the principle of jury equity is there to apply to cases of conscience in which people’s actions were motivated by the public interest. He told us about the High Court’s 2024 judgment in the case of 69-year-old retired social worker Trudi Warner, who had displayed information about the principle outside a court hearing a protest case. It is worth our listening to more details of what was said in that judgment. Paragraph 16 discusses how the principle of jury equity is well established in our common law and recognised across the common law world. The judge gives several examples from Canada, New Zealand and the United States of the principle being applied. The judgment also talks about how its origins lie in Bushel’s case, from 1670, which “arose out of the prosecution of two Quaker preachers for holding an unlawful assembly. The Recorder of London, presiding at the trial, directed the jury to convict. The jury refused. They were fined and imprisoned until payment. It was this imprisonment that the jurors successfully challenged by habeas corpus, on the basis that juries have a right to find facts and apply the law to those facts according to conscience and without reprisal.” The judgment also quotes Lord Bingham, in another landmark judgment, on the principle’s history. He states that “the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges.” He added: “I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.” In my speech on Second Reading, I pointed out that a number of offences created recently to react to successful direct action protests now sit in the triable either-way category. They include, in the Public Order Act 2023, new offences about interference with key national infrastructure, including blocking roads, and specific offences about causing serious disruption by tunnelling; and, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the offence of causing public nuisance, which replaced a common law offence and applies a higher penalty for acts that create serious annoyance or inconvenience, such as noisy protests. Importantly, Tim Crosland pointed out to us in his oral evidence that the choices the Government have made in how to implement this measure will serve to virtually eliminate jury equity in practice. He told us that, of the more than 200 people jailed in the past few years for peaceful protest, only one has been jailed for more than three years. In that light, it is suspicious that the Government have chosen three years as the threshold in the Bill, despite the Leveson report’s recommendation of two years. Sir Brian also recommended raising the financial threshold below which criminal damage—often how direct action protests are charged—is charged as a summary offence and kept in the magistrates court, where sentences are limited, but the Government are not raising that threshold. Sir Brian also said that restricting the right to elect for jury trial was “contingent upon magistrates’ sentencing powers remaining at the current…12 months”, but the Government propose powers to increase them instead. He also recommended that the new bench division should sit with a judge and two magistrates, to maintain a lay element in these Crown court cases, but the Government have chosen to ignore that, too. As far as the recent examples of cases in which jury equity has been applied are concerned, all those deviations from the recommendations point in the same way. In the light of evidence that other measures would be more effective at backlog reduction, it therefore seems to me that at least one motivation for adopting this measure is to stop the embarrassment of jury equity. I did not get the chance to ask the Minister about this during the oral evidence, but has she discussed with colleagues, companies or other interests targeted by protesters the implications and impact of the Bill and this clause, in deviating from the Leveson recommendations in the way that it does, on the important principle of jury equity? Finally, on Second Reading, I raised the question of whether these measures are yet another part of a package of the Government’s wider attacks on civil liberties. I have described this package as a “toolkit for tyrants” that includes “digital ID, facial recognition surveillance on our streets and the erosion of fundamental asylum rights—all things contrary to our British values and which should not be packaged up for this or any future Government to use against minorities…and dissidents.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 249-250.] I would like the Minister to reflect on the potential future impact of this attack on jury equity under a much worse Government.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)
The Scottish Green party is a separate party from the Green party of England and Wales, so I cannot vouch for its policies. However, the Green party’s justice policies look in the round at what is effective in reducing crime, rehabilitating offenders and improving society, based on evidence. I am sure that the Scottish Green party have those principles in mind with any policy it puts forward. That is the end of what I was planning to say, and I hope we will hear more from the Minister about the erosion of jury equity and what Tim Crosland, in relation to the Bill, called its complete elimination. This will be an important effect of what is being proposed, and it has not had enough debate as yet.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)
We are debating clause 1, which as I understand it will completely remove defendants’ right to elect; the rest of the Bill puts in place procedures whereby other people—judges—will decide whether a jury trial is held. The right to elect a jury trial is being completely abolished. Is that not correct?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tim Crosland’s point was that the Government are, in effect, abolishing the principle of jury equity. Can the Minister tell us that we cannot ever expect a judge to triage a case based on the fact that the true interests of justice might lie with a defendant relying on the principle of jury equity? Will she admit that the principle of jury equity is being abolished by the clause?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Minister has made many points about magistrates court hearings being as fair, but she seems to have forgotten the amount of evidence we heard during the oral evidence sessions. Witnesses acknowledged that magistrate court hearings were “rough and ready” and “rough around the edges”, that mistakes may be made, and that the Bill later removes the automatic right to appeal, which is an important safeguard against what she must admit is the slightly inferior justice that can be found in the magistrates courts. Will she not admit that and talk more about the appeals situation?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)
Apologies to the Minister for heckling. The point about the right of appeal is absolutely key. If mistakes are made in the magistrates court, it is currently the case that they are corrected at quite a rate. We heard evidence on that. Those two things give Opposition Members genuine and legitimate cause for concern.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
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.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
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.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Desmond. In clause 60, we are considering company donations in UK politics, and I ask the Minister to consider outright banning them, as happens, for example, in France and Canada. There is no real reason for companies to be permitted to make donations, particularly when we are concerned, as in this Bill, with ensuring that company donations are not a mechanism for channelling funds from outside the country into British politics. Why not make the situation clear and allow only individuals, whose connection to the country can be clearly tested, to donate? Company donations have been nearly half the size of individual donations in UK politics in recent years. These are really significant sums.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I consider companies and trade unions to be completely different entities. One is a profit-making organisation, and the other is a membership association designed to represent the interests of its members. The two are not parallel, and I am completely fine with trade unions making donations. Company donations have a huge influence on our politics. There is also a tax advantage for companies; there is effectively a taxpayer subsidy to them, and the advantage can be up to about 40% for companies making donations from company funds, compared with individual funds. I would therefore like to hear why the Minister thinks it is important to retain the ability for companies to make donations and does not want to follow the example of France and Canada in stopping such donations. Individuals can still make donations. On a couple of specific points, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referenced the fact that there is a clear problem in the Bill as currently drafted. A loophole permits companies to give donations up to the limit multiple times, both to a party and potentially to every single one of its candidates. Surely the limit should be set so that it reflects the total value of donations to all recipients. That has been argued for by the Electoral Commission and in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 4, and it is also covered by amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. It is also clear that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue. It is far too easy for companies to inflate their revenues by engaging in what is sometimes called transfer pricing in other sectors, effectively enabling them to completely bypass the intended restrictions. Surely it is in the spirit of the Bill, and should therefore be put into the letter of it, that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue. If we are going to permit company donations, we should be really clear that they are derived from profit made in-country, because using the revenue test provides a huge loophole. Again, that is called for in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 2, and by the Electoral Commission and many others, so I very much hope the Minister will respond positively. Amendments 34 and 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, would make the donor criminally liable. The Minister responded by saying that the onus should all be on the recipient of those donations, but that is not how the law operates in other areas when it is broken: the commissioners of the offence, as well as the recipient of the funding, are guilty. So I ask the Minister to think again. If we are talking about large companies making huge donations, they arguably have greater capacity, and certainly just as much responsibility, as the recipient to check that they are operating within the law. I refer the Minister to my comments on a previous clause about establishing a donor register, which would enable us to deal with these issues and involve the Electoral Commission in ensuring that these checks are in place. I will briefly touch on new clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), new clause 32, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), and new clause 52, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). They all recognise the widespread concern in UK politics, and among all of us to some extent, about how company donations risk twisting, and in some cases have twisted, our politics. Each of those Members has tabled a new clause seeking to ban donations from particular categories of company donor. The first seeks to exclude property development and construction undertakings, the second seeks to exclude those who have had public contracts at any time in the last 10 years, and the third seeks to exclude any companies involved in oil and gas extraction. I have huge sympathy for the arguments and for the broad thrust of those new clauses. I am not necessarily convinced that, in their current form, they are ready to be incorporated in the Bill, but they highlight a key concern. For example, there has been widespread concern about cases where large donations by a property developer were associated with planning decisions under a previous Government that went in favour of that property developer. There have also been serious concerns about the revolving door between the Government and the legislature, and profit-making companies. I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to those three new clauses tabled by Labour Members, which highlight concerns about the influence of particular groups of companies on our politics. However, the issues I really hope the Minister will respond to are, first, stopping all company donations, because people who want to make donations can still make them as individuals; secondly, adopting the post-tax profits test, rather than the revenue test; and, finally, ensuring that the donations limit applies to the total value of donations, not just single donations.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I thank the Minister for her engagement with my point. In UK politics, about 22% of donations into politics over the past few years have been from companies. We are not talking about requiring the Government to step in and put 60% of the funding into politics; we are talking about the risks associated with a specific form of donation. Under the measures the Government is putting forward in clause 60, we are putting in place requirements to ensure that persons of significant control are clearly allowable donors. However, it is possible for a company to restructure so that it just goes underneath that and does not meet the 25% threshold. So that could still be a channel for illicit or foreign funding to come into British politics. Would it not be simpler to require any persons who have significant control in a company and who wish to make political donations to make them as individuals?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I do apologise, Sir Desmond. I think I have made my point.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I apologise, but I have not heard the Minister respond to the point that I and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made about donations being counted cumulatively, which is also one of the Rycroft recommendations.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 62, page 83, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”. This amendment, together with Amendments 89 to 94, would bring the reporting threshold for donations from Unincorporated Associations in line with the permissibility threshold for donations to political parties.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
The clause contains the welcome measure of preventing donations from impermissible donors being made through the mechanism of unincorporated associations and reducing the level at which they have to register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. That is very positive. The current situation really cannot continue, so I am pleased that, through these measures, the Government will try to manage and block malicious interference and ensure democratic safety. Although unincorporated associations are used legitimately by some, they can be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, so there is potential for them to be used to introduce foreign interference in our political system. Interesting Transparency International research published last year found that, of the £40.4 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million was unaccounted for. More than 95% of donations from unincorporated associations came from those that have not reported the source of their income, so it is clearly time for change Despite those concerning statistics, the previous Government increased reporting thresholds for unincorporated associations in the Elections Act 2022, so I am very glad that this Government are reversing that decision through the Bill. Under normal regulations, donations to political parties must come from a permissible source if they are over £500, but if the donations are made by an unincorporated association, even with the lower threshold, the reporting requirements are not triggered until donations reach over £11,180 in a calendar year. Even with the new rules, it is possible for an unincorporated association that does not meet the threshold and is therefore not required to register to make donations without any checks. That is clearly an undesirable and unnecessary loophole, so I support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), which aim to close this loophole, and I urge the Minister to consider reducing the permissibility threshold for unincorporated associations to £500, equal to the permissibility threshold for other sources of donation.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 79, in clause 62, page 83, line 28, at end insert— “(h) create offences of— (i) giving an unincorporated association false information about a gift that may be used to make a political contribution, and (ii) withholding information about such a gift with intent to deceive.”—(Samantha Dixon.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 85. Clause 62, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 9 UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS MAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Amendments made: 80, in schedule 9, page 168, line 2, at end insert “, unless it already has one (see sub-paragraph (6A))”. This amendment, and amendment 81, amends the new provisions on responsible persons for unincorporated associations to make it clear that an association is not required to appoint a responsible person when it already has one in place, but that the Commission must be notified that the responsible person is willing to continue to act. Amendment 81, in schedule 9, page 168, line 30, at end insert— “(6A) Where an unincorporated association would be required by sub-paragraph (2) to appoint an individual to be the responsible person in relation to the association but an appointment of such a person is already in force, the notice under sub-paragraph (3) must inform the Commission that the responsible person is willing to remain as the responsible person in relation to the association (and sub-paragraph (4)(a) is to be read accordingly).” See the explanatory statement for amendment 80. Amendment 82, in schedule 9, page 170, line 7, after “within” insert “any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of”. This amendment prevents unincorporated associations from being permissible donors in relation to other unincorporated associations: it is intended as an anti-avoidance measure to prevent gifts being channelled through chains of unincorporated associations. Amendment 83, in schedule 9, page 170, line 20, leave out from “within” to end of line 22 and insert “any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 54(2),”. This amendment makes similar anti-avoidance provision to that in amendment 82. Amendment 84, in schedule 9, page 170, line 24, at end insert— “(4) Section 162 (meaning of exempt trust donation) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if, in subsection (2)(a), for ‘27th July 1999’ there were substituted ‘7th April 2026’.” This amendment modifies the meaning of “exempt trust donation” for unincorporated associations by providing that a trust set up before 7th April 2026 (i.e. the date of tabling this amendment) is a permissible donor to an unincorporated association. Amendment 85, in schedule 9, page 173, line 11, at end insert— “(c) after sub-paragraph (3) insert— ‘(3A) A person commits an offence if— (a) they knowingly give an unincorporated association any information relating to— (i) the amount of any gift to the association, or (ii) the person or body making such a gift, which is false in a material particular, or (b) with intent to deceive, they withhold from an unincorporated association any material information relating to a matter within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii), in circumstances where they believe that the unincorporated association may use the gift for the purposes of making a political contribution.’” This amendment creates a new criminal offence where a person knowingly provides an unincorporated association with false information, or withholds information with intent to deceive, about a gift that they believe the association may use for the purposes of making a political contribution. Amendment 86, in schedule 9, page 173, line 15, at end insert— “(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(iii), at the end insert ‘or 3A’.” This amendment inserts a missed consequential amendment so that paragraph 7(2)(b)(iii) of Schedule 19A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 refers to the new paragraph 3A inserted into that Schedule by paragraph 9 of Schedule 9. Amendment 87, in schedule 9, page 174, line 9, at end insert— <TableWrapper Columns="1" Size="8"><table class="hansardTable"><thead><tr><th>“Paragraph 6(3A)(a) of Schedule 19A (knowingly giving unincorporated association false information about gifts)</th><th>On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ courtOn summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Paragraph 6(3A)(b) of Schedule 19A (withholding from unincorporated association information about gifts with intent to deceive)</td><td>On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ courtOn summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 monthsOn summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 monthsOn indictment: fine or 1 year”. —(Samantha Dixon.)</td></tr></tbody></table></TableWrapper> This amendment sets out the penalty for the new offence inserted by amendment 85. Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to. Clause 63 Electronic material promoted by third parties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I will speak to new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28—I will rattle through them. First, new clause 10—tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), whom I thank for her work on this—relates to guidance on the law regarding digital communication offences in relation to elections. We need this clause and, although it is more complex, one word explains why: deepfakes. This new clause is, to a significant degree, about deepfakes. Tackling deepfakes is complex, but we can take practical steps now to modernise election law and improve our ability to regulate in this area. Both the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service have highlighted the need for clearer guidance on whether deepfakes fall within existing election offences. Unfortunately, the law on digital election offences is currently unclear. That uncertainty creates confusion for candidates, platforms and law enforcement, weakens democratic protections and leads to inconsistent enforcement. New clause 10 would require the Government to address that gap by publishing clear guidance within 12 months of the Bill’s passage, setting out how digital communication offences apply during elections, so that expectations are clear and enforcement is consistent. In terms evidence for why this is needed, we all know that deepfakes and manipulated content targeting politicians are already circulating, including outside election periods. Existing laws may technically cover those harms, but their application in digital context remains unclear. Recent examples include a deepfake video in October last year of a Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), which falsely claimed that he had defected. I was part of an event where he explained that, under the Online Safety Act 2023, he could potentially make a complaint about that, but would have to demonstrate that he was psychologically terribly damaged by it. That is not really what this is about—it is politics that is damaged by the proliferation of such material, so we should take our collective responsibility to deal with it very seriously. In October 2023, a deepfake audio of our current Prime Minister went viral and has repeatedly resurfaced. In Ireland last year, an AI-generated video disrupted a presidential election. Those cases and many others demonstrate the growing risk. Clear guidance is needed to ensure that the law can be effectively applied during election periods. The new clause is very reasonable. It does not require the Government to commit absolutely to something right now; it simply requires the Government to publish guidance to clarify the situation. The Government, in their response to the Speaker’s Conference report published recently, said: “The Government recognises that there are potential issues with Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are reviewing how this legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting. Where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of Section 106, particularly to ensure that it captures emerging technologies (such as deepfakes and other AI technologies) and is future-proofed.” Where better to do that than in this legislation? This is the point when the Government should action the commitment that they have already made. New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. Such advertising plays a key and increasingly central role in election campaigns, but remains significantly less transparent than traditional campaign materials. Voters are often unable to see who is targeting them, how much is being spent or whether messaging is consistent across audiences. Campaigners are able to use targeting on social media platforms, for example, to make very targeted adverts, so that nobody can see what material is going to whom. That lack of transparency creates real opportunities for misinformation. It undermines trust in the democratic process and leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation by foreign or domestic actors, as well as opaque funding sources. While the Bill, as it stands, makes progress on digital imprints, it does not go far enough to ensure meaningful, real-time transparency. New clause 24 would address those gaps by requiring the creation of a comprehensive, publicly accessible repository of digital political advertising and strengthening existing disclosure requirements. The reasons for that are well understood. Digital adverts can be micro-targeted to specific groups without wider scrutiny and there is currently no single public record of what ads are being run, by whom, at what scale or with what funding. International evidence, including from elections in the US and Europe—and, I would argue, in the UK—has shown how online political advertising can be exploited to spread disinformation and obscure funding sources. That issue was addressed by Philip Rycroft in his very useful report; I note that, on page 47, he says: “Strictly speaking, this issue of advert libraries strays beyond my remit”, but that he has “heard enough evidence to suggest that there would be considerable benefit” from establishing this practice, and he calls on the Government to take action. I welcome that point and very much hope that the Government will consider this new clause, a practical and proportionate transparency measure that would align digital campaigning more with offline political advertising. New clause 25 relates to the Electoral Commission’s powers to obtain information outside formal investigations. That is something we heard about in oral evidence and Philip Rycroft speaks about it specifically in his recommendations 9 and 10. The regulation of digital campaigning requires timely access to information, especially during very fast-moving election periods. At the moment, the Electoral Commission can effectively gather information from online platforms only through formal investigations, which can be initiated only once there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation there—a significant gap. The Commission cannot proactively monitor or respond to emerging risks in real time, including the risk of foreign interference or bot activity—a growing problem that we have seen in previous elections. As election campaigns increasingly take place online, that reduces the effectiveness of enforcement. Philip Rycroft has made a clear case for that change, so I do not need to labour the point. I very much hope that that is one of the recommendations that the Government will take away and come back on, and I would welcome some warm words from the Minister on that. New clause 27 would require a Government review of regulated periods in relation to elections—again, something addressed in the Rycroft report, which covered the need to ensure that transparency requirements apply year round. Philip Rycroft is clearly seriously concerned about the risk of gaming the system. Currently, because regulation applies only within the regulated period, but expenditure applies during the entire year, there are strong incentives for political actors to front-load expenditure just before the regulated period kicks in. There is huge evidence of that; I have seen it from another party in my own area, with huge chunks of spending coming in just before the regulated period. That is a clear loophole. Philip Rycroft draws attention to that issue, stating that high spending limits, “combined with unlimited spending possibilities outwith the regulated period, drives a sort of arms race among political parties and actors to out-raise and out-spend their competitors.” The net effect is extremely problematic for our politics. He goes on to state: “Reducing the spending limits and introducing such limits across the whole electoral cycle could potentially relieve some of the fund-raising pressure, in turn diminishing the inducement to look to non-permissible sources to stay ahead.” Rycroft acknowledges that the issue was beyond his direct remit, but it is useful that his report comments on where issues to do with foreign influence overlap with broader questions about how we regulate finance in our system. He states: “The issue of spending limits and wider caps is one for the political class as a whole to consider if it wishes to restore confidence in the political process and to keep big money out of UK politics. This might be something that could be usefully debated during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill.” Indeed—so today is our opportunity to debate it. I am saddened that the Bill, as it stands, does not address the need for year-round spending limits or for caps on overall donations—we will come to that a bit later—but this is the moment when we can and should respond to Philip Rycroft’s call to discuss this issue. I challenge the Minister on this: there is a clear need for regulation outwith the regulated period—for year-round regulation of political expenditure—and I hope that she will address that and take it forward. Finally, new clause 28, also in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central, is essentially about labelling AI-generated material. Just in the past 24 hours we have seen a global controversy over the use of an AI-generated image, posted by a person who shall perhaps remain nameless. It is clear that AI-generated material is widespread in politics. Sometimes it is easily spottable, as in the case I have just referenced, but at other times it may not necessarily be so. Legislation has not yet caught up with that issue. This new clause, like new clause 18 on the same topic, which I suspect the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may speak to shortly, is a much-needed step to improve transparency so that we know when material is produced using AI. The Electoral Commission briefing raises some questions about the specifics of how the issue is addressed, and makes the point that there is a need for similar approaches to be taken across digital and non-digital formats. I take that point broadly, but I do not think it is beyond the wit of civil servants to come up with a form of words that will address the issue. The use of generative AI has been particularly prevalent in the digital space, so this is a real opportunity for regulation to catch up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on all these very useful new clauses.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I will pick up the hon. Member’s points in my summing up.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
On a point of order, Sir Desmond. Do we need to check whether any of the amendments debated with the previous clauses need to be moved, including the ones that I tabled?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
I strongly support measures to strengthen the capacities and powers of the Electoral Commission, which plays a crucial role in regulating our politics. I will speak briefly to new clauses 46 and 53. As has already been highlighted, they are basically fully in line with Philip Rycroft’s recommendations 9 and 10, so I hope that Government amendments will be tabled in due course to address those recommendations, the justification for which has been clearly outlined. My new clause 57 concerns the Electoral Commission’s fining power. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement that they will bring forward secondary legislation to increase the commission’s maximum fine to £500,000 from £20,000, which is clearly peanuts and no disincentive at all. That will be a significant improvement, and of course will bring the measure in line with the penalty that can be imposed for breaches of electoral finance rules in relation to referendums in Scotland.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
Absolutely. It is clear that the previous level, £20,000, was utterly inadequate, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen that. The purpose of my new clause 57 is to suggest ways in which it could be strengthened further, namely by putting the maximum fine into primary legislation, and by providing that the maximum fine would be £500,000 or 4% of campaign spending, whichever was the higher. I will explain why. Most other regulators in the UK can impose unlimited fines, a high multimillion-pound fine or a fine as a percentage—for Ofcom, for example, 10%—of annual turnover. In its 2021 review of electoral finance, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the fine should be 4% of the value of campaign spending or £500,000, whichever was the higher. My new clause simply calls for what the Committee on Standards in Public Life argued for. Analysis from Spotlight on Corruption has shown that the currently proposed increase to a £500,000 maximum fine would amount to a mere 1.5% and 2.1% of the campaign spending of the Labour and Conservative parties respectively, as the two largest-spending parties. If those parties had committed an egregious offence during the 2024 general election and the 4% measure had been in place, the maximum fines would have been £1.2 million or £955,000 respectively—double the current maximum. Arguably, it should be even higher—Ofcom can fine 10%—but my new clause simply puts forward the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Minister touched on the question of whether to have the limit in primary or secondary legislation. She argued—I think I am paraphrasing accurately—that one of the advantages of having it in secondary legislation is that it can be easily updated. However, the previous level of the fine, which was £20,000, was set out in secondary legislation—it was in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010—and it was never updated. The Minister said that the level of the fine might need to be set out in secondary legislation so that it could be more easily updated to make it higher, but the historical record shows us that we have had fines that are far too low and that they are not adapted.
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
The Minister will forgive me, but I did not hear her respond to the reference in my new clause to the 4% of campaign spending. Did I briefly drop off? Will she consider that when introducing secondary legislation?
Hansard source
14 Apr 2026ParliamentAdrian Ramsay
Topical Questions
<Question HRSContentId="{ED4BA7EA-06EE-40A5-840D-ADBDFD2B7A85}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{2B6C62AA-CFE6-4561-9485-AAD9C183A6E2}"></QuestionText>The British Dental Association has highlighted that current budgets allow just 39% of adults to access NHS treatment within a two-year period. Is that really the height of the Government’s ambition, and if not, what access percentage are the Government aiming for?</Question>
Hansard source
13 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Council Tax Debt Collection
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?
Hansard source
13 Apr 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Middle East
In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?
Hansard source
26 Mar 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Transport Accessibility for Disabled People
I thank the Select Committtee Chair sincerely for the “Access denied” report, which painted a bleak picture of legislative loopholes and lacklustre political will from consecutive Governments when it comes to addressing the huge list of barriers faced by disabled people when accessing public transport. When it comes to step-free access on the railways—on which my speech will focus—it is not just the barriers faced by disabled people that we need to talk about; these barriers also apply to older people, people travelling with children, people with luggage and work equipment, and many other travellers too. We must never ever forget that improving and enabling access for disabled people—or fixing the environment, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) called it—actually fixes access for all in an inclusive, socially just way. Sixteen years on from the Equality Act 2010 coming into force, one issue repeatedly coming up in my Brighton Pavilion constituency remains the long-term problem of step-free station access. Multiple community train stations in Brighton, including Moulsecoomb and London Road, have compromised access. The problem is most keenly felt at Preston Park station, which is used by a very large number of passengers. It is a station rooted in the heart of the community, which sees thousands of people use it to access direct trains to London, Gatwick, Bedford and Cambridge, as well as west along the coast towards Littlehampton. For visitors travelling to fabulous events hosted at the nearby park—like the Foodies festival in May and the concert due to be held in July by adopted local rock god Nick Cave, and the Bad Seeds—Preston Park station should be the obvious get-off point, yet for decades it has been overlooked when it comes to funding bids to address accessibility issues. It is a category C station with no step-free access and is simply inaccessible currently. There is no lift, with stairs to every platform, and, as the railway is a barrier for travel across the constituency, this lack also impedes active travel more generally. Without step-free access, my local residents are required to travel 2 miles to Brighton mainline station to board trains there, and this can be in addition to calling ahead to pre-book the use of a ramp at that station. This is all an unreasonable adjustment. Yet, despite all these problems and the potential benefits of fixing them, in May 2024, in the dying days of the last Government, Preston Park station did not make the 50-station shortlist for Access for All funding. In January, when making an announcement to cull the Conservatives’ 50 station list to eight definites and 19 maybes, Lord Hendy in the other place accused the previous Government of “raising significant stakeholder expectations” about the station accessibility funding, and said: “This Government is committed to a rigorous approach and only making commitments we believe are affordable and would represent value for money to passengers and taxpayers.” This example, which is so frustrating for my constituents, shows that positive aspirations for the railways are not enough on their own; they need to be backed up with concrete funding and real commitment. Step-free access is not a convenient thing to have in an ideal world. Step-free access to platforms is a necessity and an equalities issues. It enables participation in work, education, healthcare and social life. I am not filled with confidence that the Government are committed to the funding needed, or the urgency with which it is needed, but there are huge opportunities for the Government to reform their approach through Great British Railways—I really hope to hear something from the Minister on this later. What has been communicated to date by Ministers does fall short. They must take steps to commit to the funding and resource needed to rapidly remove barriers, and end the discrimination that disabled people face when trying to navigate public transport networks. Finally, I invite the Minister to visit Preston Park station to meet my dedicated local campaigners, and to see the multiple issues faced not just by disabled passengers and those with access needs, but by the general public as well. I invite him to see these problems at first hand.
Hansard source
26 Mar 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)
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 19, tabled by my hon. Member for Hazel Grove. 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.
Hansard source
26 Mar 2026ParliamentDr Ellie Chowns
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)
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.
Hansard source

Green Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Cost of Heating Oil

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Third sitting)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Courts and Tribunals Bill (Fourth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Topical Questions

Council Tax Debt Collection

Middle East

Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)