Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Apsana Begum

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.

I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would

“help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.”

I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections.

Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her place; she will make a fantastic Minister. I want to start by talking about the risks that we are seeing to our democracy: the emergence of AI and the use of crypto to fund parties, alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the two-party system. It is vital that the Bill introduces a much-needed refresh.

One area that the Bill has overlooked is electoral participation, which has been in stark decline for many years. At the last general election, just 59.7% of the electorate voted—the lowest turnout since 2001. The picture is far worse in local elections and by-elections; the Clacton by-election, for instance, saw turnout of a mere 44%, although there may have been other reasons for that. Low turnout is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.

That is why I have tabled new clause 57, which would require the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of the Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, Australia has consistently seen a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimal fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this new clause recognises that, while also protecting the right to spoil one’s ballot paper or return a blank paper.

Coupled with the compulsory voting provision, new clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education. This is important, as research from the Institute For Public Policy Research shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report their school providing regular citizenship lessons. As the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it is not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own—many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, which is why new clause 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults, too.

Alongside new clause 57, I support a number of new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK. I have also supported measures that address the wild west of UK political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being hijacked by those who have only their own interests at heart.

I am extremely proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) with new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. I do not understand why support of such new clauses would even be a question or why we would not support them right now, today.

Finally, although the Bill does not cover constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how they are set. We represent constituents regardless of their right to vote, and thinking about the numbers in terms of the electorate who go on to vote, fewer and fewer people are involved in our political decisions. However, it is not just that: boundaries drawn on the electorate, not on residents, mean that inner-city constituencies like mine, which have the highest levels of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework, representing far more people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter when enacting part 2 of the Bill.

Bills of this nature do not come around often. They offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope that the Government will recognise the benefits that these amendments would bring.

Immigration Reforms

Debate between Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Apsana Begum

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for leading this debate. My Government came to power promising a fairer Britain, so I have to ask plainly, who exactly are all these immigration proposals for? They are not designed for the people I represent, who help to keep this country running.

I want to start with the thousands of children and young people who have grown up in the UK and who are being pushed to the margins of the immigration system. They are being made to pay child citizenship fees of £1,214 to register as a British citizen. The Home Office’s own figures show that it makes a profit of £840 on each application. The fee is not an administrative cost; it is a revenue-raising exercise targeted at children, and it results in tens of thousands of children who have a legal right to British citizenship being priced out of it. They do not discover the consequences of that until later in life. Members may be wondering why I am still talking about this issue, given that the Government made a commitment in the House to reduce the financial burden on families and to address the issue specifically, but in all the proposals, I have not heard anything about it, and the fee remains the highest in Europe.

The Government are also proposing to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. The idea that we would apply it retrospectively undermines the foundation of trust on which people make decisions when they come to work in the UK. They put down roots based on the rules that they are given when they apply. Those families are attempting to live and work in this country based on the promises that were made. We will drag people into an endless cycle of visa applications and unpredictable fees, sitting alongside an asylum and accommodation system where private providers make millions from Government contracts despite repeated reports of mismanagement, abuse and dangerous conditions. In turn, we turn around and blame those who are the most vulnerable—those seeking asylum—and change their conditions.

[Apsana Begum]

On danger and protections, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must maintain the existing protections for survivors of domestic violence who have fled persecution and violence abroad, including the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession and the domestic violence ILR protection?