Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is not about whether one political party—or one party in government—is more trustworthy than the other; we leave that to the voters. This is about trusting in the integrity of the voters. He is absolutely right that the greatest influence and first right of every citizen in this country should be their ability to participate in the democratic process, pick their Government and pick the elected representatives who stand up for them, but there needs to be integrity.

My hon. Friend is right to outline that this should be seen not in a party political way, but in a process way. The new clause would contribute to that aim by giving powers to the independent Electoral Commission, which, as the Minister reminded us in the previous sitting of this Committee, is governed by Parliament, not the Government. This is a step that the Minister could take, seeing that they are very keen to give the Electoral Commission increased power.

This new clause is crucial and non-partisan, and it would allow us to have a tangible effect on the trust in and integrity of our system. Nobody is bigger or better than the system that we have, but that system can be improved, and we should not be shying away from allowing ourselves to improve it, no matter who is in government, to make sure that every time that a voter walks into a polling station, they know that their vote will be cast in the most secret and best way possible. I hope the Minister will look kindly upon the new clause, although I am sure she will not. I look forward to her remarks in response.

[Dr Chowns]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 36 and amendment 25 would place a new legal duty on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for returning officers on how to enforce the offences introduced by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. I stress at the outset how seriously the Government take all forms of electoral fraud or coercion, including family voting. It is illegal and unacceptable, and polling staff should feel confident to challenge and report any incidents.

However, I have serious concerns about these amendments. It is essential to point out that the commission can already issue guidance, and it already provides extensive guidance for returning officers. Putting the requirement into legislation would set a new precedent, allowing Parliament to direct how the commission produces its guidance in the future. The Commission’s independence, as we discussed earlier, is central to public confidence in how elections are run. Because the amendments would require Ministers and Parliament to approve or even change the guidance, there is a real risk that people would see that as political interference and involvement in something that should remain an operational matter for the commission.

The extra approval steps could also delay clear guidance for returning officers. If Parliament rejected the draft guidance, the commission would have to start again, creating uncertainty for those responsible for enforcing ballot secrecy. For those reasons—concerns about independence, ministerial involvement, added complexity and the precedent they set—the Government cannot support the amendments.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made some comments that, I think, questioned my integrity in making my speech.

[Dr Chowns]

Not the hon. Gentleman’s integrity—his judgment.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady says it is my judgment. It is interesting that I am being accused of weaponising an issue because of one aspect where I think there is an imbalance, or a different interpretation of ways of overseeing voting at polling stations. First, that is a subjective term—

[Dr Chowns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, it would not. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady; we get on, and I believe we are both in this for the same reasons. My explanatory note is very clear about what the new clause would protect, and where it would not have an impact. It states:

“It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.”

So no, because that is officially known as a minority language within the British Isles. We have been very careful to ensure that people in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and those who read Braille or rely on sign language, will not be excluded by the new clause. Communities that are not learning English should be able to read the English through translation services, which are encouraged by the social cohesion strategy.

We also have to think about the other side: many people living in multi-ethnic communities receive leaflets in a foreign language, and they cannot read what is being said by a party. That is not a level playing field in the voting system, and I think it is wrong. We have seen examples where that has been used in an exploitative way in recent months, and there is no doubt that we will see it used in an exploitative way in future. That happened in Tower Hamlets, it happened in Gorton, and it will happen again.

If the Minister will not support the new clause, will the Government look at how to streamline the voting system in this country, so that we have, at least, guidance on languages? She may say that it already exists, but we need to toughen the regulations to prescribe, or describe, how parties should treat British languages versus foreign languages. I look forward to her Minister’s response on new clause 37.

[Dr Chowns]

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.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 37 would ban the use of foreign languages in campaign material during the regulated period—it would make it a criminal offence. A primary purpose of the Bill is to encourage more people across society to engage and participate in our democracy. The new clause would not serve that purpose. It is not for the Government to prescribe the languages that campaigners are permitted to use to engage voters who come from a wide range of diverse backgrounds across the constituencies we represent. It is certainly not for the Government to criminalise the use of certain languages.

Various electoral and non-electoral offences protect against malicious forms of campaign material, which is, in essence, what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was talking about. For example, it is an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. It is also an offence to improperly influence someone to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. That would include, for example, a leaflet that threatened to make use of force or place undue spiritual pressure on a person in order to induce them to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. Those offences apply regardless of the language used in the campaign material.

The Government have no plans to regulate the use of foreign languages in campaign material. We are seeking to minimise barriers to participation while safeguarding the integrity and security of elections. The measures in the Bill are intended to restore faith in our politics and ensure that the UK continues to be a thriving and diverse democracy. The new clause is entirely incompatible with those intentions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I wholly accept the Minister’s comments; I did not expect that she would be looking into this. I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, too. She used the example of returning officers. They are filling things in and conducting a process; they are not using foreign languages to exploit a section of our society against a policy or a party in this country with which they happen to disagree. That is the clear and distinct difference, and that is the example that I used in moving the new clause. Her example is about the process; my example is about using foreign language to exploit a political message in an advantageous way. That is why I tabled the new clause, and I wish to press it to a vote.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady.

[Dr Chowns]

For the sake of the record, I feel duty bound to say, “Me too!”

[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.

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

That is the only time the Liberal Democrats have ever cheered me on, so I am glad we are in agreement.

The Minister gave a comprehensive outline of the proposals in clause 60. I will briefly talk to amendment 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) but moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The Conservatives think the amendment is well intentioned, but one of my big concerns—I think the Minister outlined this, but perhaps she will return to it in winding up—is the burden that would be placed on businesses, which already have quite extensive regulatory burdens placed on them by Government. I think all parties in this Committee have intimated that everybody wants more transparency and wants to talk more about donations to ensure that we really tighten up the regulatory regime on political party donations. However, although I am not averse to being radical, I think amendment 34 is probably a bit over-burdensome and we do not support it, but we are content to support clause 60.

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

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the clause. It is important that when we have been discussing the nature of this legislation, particularly regarding donations, we have outlined a clear stance that if people want to participate in our political process and make donations, they should have a physical stake in it. Any removal of the ambiguity around campaigners having to look to see whether it is permissible is welcome. It is a reasonable expectation from the Government that there has to be some level of participatory engagement in the political process. We have no problem with the clause; indeed we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Unincorporated associations making political contributions

[Dr Chowns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I have already said that I think the Government are being sensible in creating a unified or level playing field between companies and unincorporated associations. I was not an expert on the previous Act when it was passed, but in my view it is sensible for the Government to be taking this action, now that its consequences are clear, because the Act obviously did not work. If Members across the House look at some of my previous remarks on some of the proposals brought forward by the last Government, I am not ashamed to say that sometimes—I only say sometimes—we got it wrong. That is the nature of democracy.

The changes that the Government are making are sensible and my contention is that some of the amendments—especially amendments 88 and 90—use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They create an overburden compared with the Government’s good intentions and what they want to get out of the proposals.

We would not support amendment 88 and we certainly would not support amendment 90, but we do welcome the strides that the Government, and the Minister, are trying to take in tightening up the regime.

[Dr Chowns]

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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Does anyone on the Committee intend to speak to new clauses 10 or 24?

[Dr Chowns]

indicated assent.

[Paul Holmes]

In that case, I reserve my right to speak until after the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

[Dr Chowns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire did not mind that I gave up speaking to enable her to do so, but I wanted to check whether someone would speak to those new clauses. I wanted to allow her to elaborate the argument so that I could come in with some of my thoughts at the end.

As the shadow Minister, I was intrigued, in various meetings that I have had, as we have all had, with outside organisations about the Bill, by the ideas outlined in new clauses 10 and 24. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central for tabling them; they are substantive new clauses that I think are very well intentioned. The number of Members who have supported them on the amendment paper shows the importance of tackling some of these issues in a cross-party and urgent way.

On new clause 10, on the guidance on law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined the problems that we are currently having. Digital communication offences are becoming a bigger problem, and they cause harm to people. The current duty is to demonstrate that the person has been harmed emotionally. She used the example of the deepfake that went out of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, showing him saying that he was leaving the Conservative party and going to Reform. Although that has not necessarily been a strange development in the last couple of months, anyone who knows my hon. Friend knows that that is incredibly unlikely. It would also cause a great deal of distress to many of us moderate Conservatives for it to ever be thought that we could go to Reform. There is serious point behind that, which is that for anyone harmed by something like that, there should be laws relating to digital communication offences.

We do not think that new clause 10 would be arduous on the Government. It asks them to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences, and it does not ask for immediate action. It allows the Minister and the Government to go away and provide guidance. The Minister has said many times today that she is considering, for example, the Rycroft review, and that she will come back with suitable guidance and proposals. The new clause is in that spirit. It would allow her to go away and look at what we need to do in this increasingly concerning area of election campaigning. The call from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central is eminently sensible, and so we will support new clause 10 if it is pressed to a vote because we want that guidance to be brought in.

New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. I do not expect Committee members to remember the questioning in the oral evidence sessions—particularly my questions—but I was really quite fascinated by the proposal. Like the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and other members of the Committee, I have met some organisations that have advocated for it. I do not think that we should be fearful, as politicians and members of any political party, or of none, of standing by the things that we put out in elections. Therefore, instead of going in the bin, as some of mine do, they should be kept online to ensure transparency and accountability through a simple repository regime.

The Government have repeatedly proposed to put more burdens—more regulatory responsibilities, I should say—on the Electoral Commission. I do not think this proposal would be a particularly bad burden to place on it. There is a question about resourcing the Electoral Commission, but I know that the hon. Lady and the various organisations that are advocating for new clause 24 are pretty relaxed about who would manage holding the information and transferring it to the National Archives, so I think that is something that the Government should explore.

I was interested that the hon. Lady outlined that she is concerned about misinformation, manipulation and the exploitation of the electoral process by foreign actors. I hope that when we come to new clause 37, she will be equally concerned about the exploitation of votes using foreign languages in electoral literature. I hope she will look as favourably on that proposal as I am on this one, because I believe that is equally exploitative of various communities in the country.

We support new clause 24, which we think is radical, but sensible and transparent. If we stand by what we put out there, we should not fear the people who elect us holding us to account for what has been put out, so I think that is actually quite an exciting prospect for democracy.

That is where the consensus between me and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes Central and for North Herefordshire ends. I have a number of concerns about new clause 27, not because I am opposed to having a general conversation about the regulatory period. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is right that parties of all colours front-load and send out a lot of stuff before the regulated period starts. The regulated period is inherently there to protect the smaller parties from the bigger parties and to give everybody a level playing field.

I know that when the regulated period starts—and we are all currently going through the start of one—every party has equal right to put out an equal amount of election literature to people in our constituencies, boroughs or counties. All parties are held to the same standard and it can be proved if there has been—I hope not—manipulation of the election expenses. The regulated period is there to protect parties.

Do not get me wrong: in my constituency five Liberal Democrat “in touch” communications go out every year. It drives me mad. I do not like it. I do not like its content, but the Liberal Democrats have every right to communicate with their residents. Putting an annual limit on the amount of literature that can be put out is anti-democratic. It is quite good to have some element of competition, where many parties can put out election communications throughout the year. I worry that having an arbitrary annual cap on the amount of literature that we can put out will harm independent candidates and local parties—they may exist: we have the Eastleigh borough independents, of whom three were successfully elected councillors. They should not be held to the same standard as national parties, which can absorb the cost. I am slightly concerned about the unintended consequences of that.

New clause 27 does not outline whether it covers material related to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which some of we elected representatives, choose to put out. We have a budget to communicate to our constituents. Are we going to be held to the same reporting threshold for those IPSA communications, which are not party political but are elected literature? [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Herefordshire like to intervene to correct me?

[Dr Chowns]

I will pick up the hon. Member’s points in my summing up.

[Paul Holmes]

I am not being adversarial; there is an argument that although the literature that goes out via IPSA is not party political, as an elected official, IPSA is giving me the ability to send out literature that would not be included within the threshold. Other parties that oppose me at the next general election should be entitled to put out resources to match those, and I do not think that should be governed within an annual spending limit.

It worries me that if we get to a period in which we are controlling smaller, larger, regional and local political parties and holding them to the same standard in election spending as national, established parties such as those that hon. Members on the Committee represent, that would start to erode free and fair democratic access to the people who elect us and elect our colleagues in local government across the country. I am uncomfortable with that, although we could have a conversation about the lengths of regulated periods.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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 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.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[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.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[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.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

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

[Dr Chowns]

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

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.

New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.

New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.

I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.

Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.

To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.

We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.

[Ellie Chowns]

I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.

I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the

“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”

and does

“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”

It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.

The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?

[The Chair]

Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?

[Paul Holmes]

I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.

[Ellie Chowns]

At the cost of social housing.

[Paul Holmes]

I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.

I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.

[Ellie Chowns]

My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.

Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.

We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”

I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure

“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,

but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.

This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.

With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.

I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.

I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Thursday 15th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I fully support this.

[Paul Holmes]

We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.

Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.

Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England.

On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that.

Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.

[Ellie Chowns]

I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.

[Ellie Chowns]

North Herefordshire.

[Paul Holmes]

I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.

I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority

“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.

New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy

“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,

or make

“such a strategy available for inspection”,

but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).

On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—

[Ellie Chowns]

I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]

[Paul Holmes]

After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.

Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Ellie Chowns and Paul Holmes

Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q I have one very brief question, to change tack slightly, and I would appreciate it if each witness could give a short answer, because I know other colleagues want to come in. The last witness that we heard from was the chief executive of Natural England. As you will know, one of the most controversial parts of the legislation is habitats and nature.

I do not want to put words into the chief executive’s mouth, because she is not here now, but she told the Committee that there was some concern with the new systems over potential shortfalls in funding because of the spending review, which has not yet allocated money in the short term to Natural England, compared with the extra responsibilities that Natural England will have to undertake on habitat and nature. Can you outline your individual organisations’ views on whether Natural England is adequately resourced at the moment to undertake those extra duties? Under its current guise and funding, do you think that it is in a fit state to deliver on those extra responsibilities?

Victoria Hills: We have been very clear in our position: we support Natural England taking forward some of these new powers and responsibilities, provided that it is adequately resourced to do so. I do not have a detailed diagnostic of its resourcing and capability plans, but we have been assured, working with the Department, that the resources will be there. That is something that we will be keeping a very close eye on.

We support the principle of coming up with strategic solutions to some of the approaches to the environment, which can be delivered at a strategic level. As you know, we are a strong supporter of strategic planning and we believe that some of the biodiversity and nature aspects of planning do not stop at district council boundaries, or even county council boundaries. It makes perfect sense to look at these things at a strategic level; we support that and we support the ambition of Natural England to do it. However, we will caveat that by saying that it must be adequately resourced to do so, and that is a point that we will continue to make.

Faraz Baber: I work as a practitioner for a planning, environment and design company called Lanpro, which operates across the country. With that lens, I would say that the provisions on what it is expected that Natural England will deliver are right. It is good that the Government are moving towards the delivery of environmental delivery plans and all the things that sit around them.

I thought that the challenge to Natural England earlier was interesting. The chief executive was challenged as to whether, given what is in the Bill, there could be a cast-iron guarantee of the environmental credentials that we need to see come through. I have to say that I was surprised at the response, because you cannot: we have to see how it works in practice. For Natural England to deliver that, it will need to significantly recruit dedicated teams to operate a number of the provisions that are set out in the Bill, the EDPs being a good example. It is right that there will be concern about the comprehensive spending review and whether Natural England will have the resources and function to deliver. In principle, the Government are right in their direction of travel on this, but they will need to commit to the resources and funding to deliver on their promise.

Hugh Ellis: To add to that, rather than repeat it, there are concerns about the scheme design. We at the TCPA are also concerned about the philosophy that lies behind it—that it may lead to an offsetting process. To be clear, the foundation of planning is that nature and development can be easily managed together to enhance both. That is our tradition, and it has always been the planning tradition, from Morris onwards. The philosophy of planning should always be that I can build a development for you that will enhance nature and provide housing. The setting up of the two ideas in opposition is destructive and distracting.

We need to focus on design quality in new housing, and principally that means allowing people to have access to nature immediately. They need that for their mental health and physical wellbeing. That is a crucial saving to the NHS and social care budget in the long run. We want high-quality design first, and offsetting and large-scale habitat creation elsewhere—as a second resort, but not as the first, principal test.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q To follow on from that, Mr Ellis, what do you think the purpose of planning should be, and do you think it should be written into the Bill?

Hugh Ellis: Since 1947, the greatest absence in all planning reform measures has been that we do not know what the system is for. The current round of reforms raises that question profoundly. The purpose should be sustainable development. We are signatories to the UN charter, and key concepts around sustainable development do not feature in the national planning policy framework. Those are really crucial ones about social justice, inclusion, environmental limits and precautionary principles. Those are all key to giving the planning system a purpose. That purpose is crucial pragmatically, because across the sector we need to know what the system is for, so that we can have confidence in it.

It is also crucial to understand that the system has long-term goals, future generations being one of them, and addressing the climate crisis being another. Within three to five years, the repeated impacts from climate change will be the dominant political issue we confront, and we need a system that works for that, as well as for housing growth.

Faraz Baber: Whether it should be in the Bill or in an NPPF-style document is more about whether people are able to know what planning is and how that is communicated. I do not necessarily believe that that has to be enshrined in the Bill, but it certainly should be clear, whether it is in the national planning policy framework, a local plan or a spatial development strategy, so that people—by which I mean all those who interact with the planning system—can know what planning is about and what it means for them. I feel that a Bill, and ultimately an Act, is the wrong place for it to be enshrined.