Dr Ellie Chowns
MP for North Herefordshire · Green Party · United Kingdom
“Potholes are the bane of all our lives, including for my constituents, but I have a cunning plan: we could fix potholes much faster by tapping into the superpowers of bin men and women. Bin lorries travel every road every week.”
“I completely agree. To do that, we need to think long-term. We do not do well enough in this country at thinking long-term, or beyond the next election cycle. We need to think of the next generation. What sort of world do we want to bequeath to them?”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for securing this extremely important and highly topical debate. Having had three heatwaves in less than three months, we are all more than aware of the reality of extreme heat.”
“We have to enable everybody in the country to stay healthy in the extremes of heat that we are increasingly seeing so that they do not have to go into hospital in the first place.”
“As we have seen, there is international precedent and huge levels of support across the country We also need to recognise that we must build the long-term resilience that we require. As a country, we do not yet have an adaptation plan that is fit for purpose, or the co-ordination that is needed.”
“I have heard from parents who are deeply concerned, both about school closures and about schools not closing when their kids are struggling to learn in conditions of extreme heat, and from people who are desperately concerned about our health infrastructure, social care and homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Dr Ellie Chowns, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“The 2020 report by the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, called for a regulatory committee on political advertising that would involve relevant experts from the Advertising Standards Authority, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority, who would co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties would then work with those regulators to develop a code of practice, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum. The Lords Committee recommends that that regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of the code, and that is effectively what new clause 63 would put in place.”
“I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very next new clause on the selection list, which engages with precisely that question. In addition to New Zealand, there are similar rules about the regulation of political advertising in Australia. On the question of who will adjudicate, there is currently no independent body with the power to adjudicate on the truthfulness or accuracy of non-broadcast political advertising. That is an issue. Provision has been made in the new clauses for a separation: the code of practice would be established by the Electoral Commission and the oversight of the decision making—the adjudication—would be done by a different body.”
“I understand that we have a situation where the police might not feel that investigations are necessarily in their interest, because the fines that can be charged are not proportionate to the huge amount of police time that might be required to investigate the issues. I would like to hear from the Government how they will address the clear gap in the capacity of the system overall to initiate criminal proceedings on breaches of electoral law. An obvious solution would be to put it through the Electoral Commission. I recognise that Philip Rycroft has a somewhat different view. Will the Government please explain their view?”
“I note that Philip Rycroft dealt with that question in his report and recommended an alternative approach. I have tabled the new clause as a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide more clarification. If we are not going to give these powers to the Electoral Commission, who should take the lead? The status quo is clearly not working. There is an alarming lack of prosecution in this space, going back quite a number of years. The net effect is essentially that people can escape from prosecution. If it is not going to be the Electoral Commission, we need much more investment in the capacities and powers of the police.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission’s instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—a capacity that the Electoral Commission previously had, which was removed by the Elections Act 2022. We currently have a bizarre situation where any individual or organisation other than the Electoral Commission can make a private prosecution against breaches of political finance law but the Electoral Commission cannot. That gives rise to a criminal enforcement gap, which is not helped by a lack of investigatory and prosecutorial lead capacity, especially for UK-wide offences. Other similar regulators in the UK can bring criminal proceedings in areas under their auspices, so there is a real question: why not the Electoral Commission?”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 75 Power to make consequential provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns? Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that “The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.” Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward?”
“We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses. I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense?”
“I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to. Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency.”
“That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties. That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.”
“Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation.”
“It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.”
“Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements. I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors.”
“Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them. I agree with the hon.”
“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.”
“However, the issues I really hope the Minister will respond to are, first, stopping all company donations, because people who want to make donations can still make them as individuals; secondly, adopting the post-tax profits test, rather than the revenue test; and, finally, ensuring that the donations limit applies to the total value of donations, not just single donations.”
“I have huge sympathy for the arguments and for the broad thrust of those new clauses. I am not necessarily convinced that, in their current form, they are ready to be incorporated in the Bill, but they highlight a key concern. For example, there has been widespread concern about cases where large donations by a property developer were associated with planning decisions under a previous Government that went in favour of that property developer. There have also been serious concerns about the revolving door between the Government and the legislature, and profit-making companies. I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to those three new clauses tabled by Labour Members, which highlight concerns about the influence of particular groups of companies on our politics.”
“Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), new clause 32, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), and new clause 52, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). They all recognise the widespread concern in UK politics, and among all of us to some extent, about how company donations risk twisting, and in some cases have twisted, our politics. Each of those Members has tabled a new clause seeking to ban donations from particular categories of company donor. The first seeks to exclude property development and construction undertakings, the second seeks to exclude those who have had public contracts at any time in the last 10 years, and the third seeks to exclude any companies involved in oil and gas extraction.”
“The Minister responded by saying that the onus should all be on the recipient of those donations, but that is not how the law operates in other areas when it is broken: the commissioners of the offence, as well as the recipient of the funding, are guilty. So I ask the Minister to think again. If we are talking about large companies making huge donations, they arguably have greater capacity, and certainly just as much responsibility, as the recipient to check that they are operating within the law. I refer the Minister to my comments on a previous clause about establishing a donor register, which would enable us to deal with these issues and involve the Electoral Commission in ensuring that these checks are in place. I will briefly touch on new clause 13, in the name of the hon.”
“It is far too easy for companies to inflate their revenues by engaging in what is sometimes called transfer pricing in other sectors, effectively enabling them to completely bypass the intended restrictions. Surely it is in the spirit of the Bill, and should therefore be put into the letter of it, that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue. If we are going to permit company donations, we should be really clear that they are derived from profit made in-country, because using the revenue test provides a huge loophole. Again, that is called for in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 2, and by the Electoral Commission and many others, so I very much hope the Minister will respond positively. Amendments 34 and 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, would make the donor criminally liable.”
“On a couple of specific points, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referenced the fact that there is a clear problem in the Bill as currently drafted. A loophole permits companies to give donations up to the limit multiple times, both to a party and potentially to every single one of its candidates. Surely the limit should be set so that it reflects the total value of donations to all recipients. That has been argued for by the Electoral Commission and in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 4, and it is also covered by amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. It is also clear that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue.”
“I consider companies and trade unions to be completely different entities. One is a profit-making organisation, and the other is a membership association designed to represent the interests of its members. The two are not parallel, and I am completely fine with trade unions making donations. Company donations have a huge influence on our politics. There is also a tax advantage for companies; there is effectively a taxpayer subsidy to them, and the advantage can be up to about 40% for companies making donations from company funds, compared with individual funds. I would therefore like to hear why the Minister thinks it is important to retain the ability for companies to make donations and does not want to follow the example of France and Canada in stopping such donations. Individuals can still make donations.”
“Would it not be simpler to require any persons who have significant control in a company and who wish to make political donations to make them as individuals?”
“I thank the Minister for her engagement with my point. In UK politics, about 22% of donations into politics over the past few years have been from companies. We are not talking about requiring the Government to step in and put 60% of the funding into politics; we are talking about the risks associated with a specific form of donation. Under the measures the Government is putting forward in clause 60, we are putting in place requirements to ensure that persons of significant control are clearly allowable donors. However, it is possible for a company to restructure so that it just goes underneath that and does not meet the 25% threshold. So that could still be a channel for illicit or foreign funding to come into British politics.”
“I apologise, but I have not heard the Minister respond to the point that I and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made about donations being counted cumulatively, which is also one of the Rycroft recommendations.”
“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.”
“Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), which aim to close this loophole, and I urge the Minister to consider reducing the permissibility threshold for unincorporated associations to £500, equal to the permissibility threshold for other sources of donation.”
“Under normal regulations, donations to political parties must come from a permissible source if they are over £500, but if the donations are made by an unincorporated association, even with the lower threshold, the reporting requirements are not triggered until donations reach over £11,180 in a calendar year. Even with the new rules, it is possible for an unincorporated association that does not meet the threshold and is therefore not required to register to make donations without any checks. That is clearly an undesirable and unnecessary loophole, so I support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon.”
“Interesting Transparency International research published last year found that, of the £40.4 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million was unaccounted for. More than 95% of donations from unincorporated associations came from those that have not reported the source of their income, so it is clearly time for change Despite those concerning statistics, the previous Government increased reporting thresholds for unincorporated associations in the Elections Act 2022, so I am very glad that this Government are reversing that decision through the Bill.”
“The clause contains the welcome measure of preventing donations from impermissible donors being made through the mechanism of unincorporated associations and reducing the level at which they have to register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. That is very positive. The current situation really cannot continue, so I am pleased that, through these measures, the Government will try to manage and block malicious interference and ensure democratic safety. Although unincorporated associations are used legitimately by some, they can be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, so there is potential for them to be used to introduce foreign interference in our political system.”
“— (Samantha Dixon.) This amendment sets out the penalty for the new offence inserted by amendment 85. Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to. Clause 63 Electronic material promoted by third parties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 87, in schedule 9, page 174, line 9, at end insert— “Paragraph 6(3A)(a) of Schedule 19A (knowingly giving unincorporated association false information about gifts) On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Paragraph 6(3A)(b) of Schedule 19A (withholding from unincorporated association information about gifts with intent to deceive) On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”.”
“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 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 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.”
“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 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, 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.”
“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))”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”