Azzurra Moores and Chris Morris gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Demos and Full Fact. We have until 5.20 pm for this panel in our revised timescale. Will our witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Azzurra Moores:

Hi, my name is Azzurra Moores. I am the associate director of information ecosystems at Demos, the UK’s cross-party think tank.

Chris Morris:

Hello, I am Chris Morris, the chief executive of Full Fact. We are a charity and we do fact-checking. We also have a technology team and a policy team to try to tackle issues of misinformation.

Q Good afternoon, both of you, and welcome to the Committee. I enjoyed reading both your submissions to the Committee. It really interested me that there is clearly a desire, from both your organisations, to reduce the amount of threats and harms to active participants in the political process, and to come up with tangible examples of where you want to try to tackle the electoral system, particularly where we are—a bit like with computers—speeding ahead in technological advancement but the system is creaking in trying to catch up with it. I want to explore two areas quickly and then hand over to the Minister.

Clearly, in the election strategy announced before Christmas, the Government said that our

“democracy is being threatened by misinformation”.

Both your organisations have come up with fairly similar recommendations, including, in the Demos report on electoral online harms, the recommendation for a political digital repository. I think that is quite a good idea. Can you outline to the Committee, on behalf of your organisations, where you think that the Bill is deficient in tackling such threats, particularly those from digital communications?

Azzurra Moores:

I should clarify that our recommendations are so similar because Demos, Full Fact and other civil society partners have been working together.

I would never have guessed.

Azzurra Moores:

We are working together partly because there is a real feeling among civil society that the Bill is much too narrow in scope and does not go far enough to tackle some of the major threats to elections that we are seeing. Part of the reason we came together is the quote that you referenced, Paul: the Prime Minister himself said that misinformation is a huge problem, and actually we are seeing such threats to elections.

We have come together to think about some of the recommendations. We have come up with a number of recommendations on a range of issues, including online harassment of candidates, given that the Bill focuses a lot on in-person harassment of candidates. We have also looked at deepfakes, and at how digital advertising needs to be modernised. We really feel that the Bill is, at the moment, a bit of a missed opportunity to tackle something that is—this is the consensus among civil society—a huge threat to democracy.

If we do not tackle some of these issues now, we do not know when we are going to tackle them to prepare ourselves for the next election. We were quite lucky in the last election that we did not see major threats to democracy or huge amounts of interference. But we have seen examples globally, including across Europe and in Canada, and we have seen examples outside election periods. We feel that that is why the Bill needs to be amended to provide for some of the bigger threats that elections face.

Chris Morris:

To back that up, part of our fear is that a lot of what is in the Bill has been locked in for so long that these really important aspects of misinformation and disinformation are missing. As you suggested, we are in a situation where technology is moving at warp speed.

We recognise that legislating at a fixed point when the technology is moving so quickly is not easy, yet the Bill falls significantly short of its original aims, which included restoring trust and strengthening the integrity of our democracy. If you are going to hold an election, the information environment in which it is held is absolutely central to the public perception—I think I am going to use the word “transparency” a lot during this session—that the system is working in their favour and can be trusted.

People are sceptical—we like scepticism; scepticism is good. The danger is that it tips over into outright cynicism. The more transparent the measures in the Bill can be, and the clearer it is that people understand they can trust the system—and that they can trust that political parties and candidates, when standing for office, are held to high standards—the better it will be. The concern is that the technology is outweighing the ability of Committees like this one and legislation like this Bill to do the job they set out to do.

Q I do not think you are the only one sitting around the table today who considers the Bill a missed opportunity, particularly when it comes to catching up on digital harms and the scrutiny that all of us as local or national politicians should be under when it comes to digital campaigning.

These quotes are from your briefing, Chris, if I may plagiarise and read them out. A former Minister said that more needs to be done to deal with hostile actors. My boss, James Cleverly, has said that the Conservatives would support

“sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 635.]

Zöe Franklin, who serves on this Committee, said that section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 needs to be updated to

“explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 651.]

Your briefing also mentions what Martin Wrigley and Alex Barros-Curtis said. Emily Darlington, with her two excellent amendments, has tried to tackle this issue.

What interactions have you both had with officials in the Department to see how far you can get in probing and trying to get these issues included in the Bill in the first place? What would you say to the Committee about Emily Darlington’s new clauses 22 and 24?

Chris Morris:

Overall, both our organisations are talking to officials all the time, so the doors are open, which is good. Part of the problem with the debate about deepfakes is that, in my opinion, some people want to go too far. It is worth exploring the idea of criminalising deepfakes as essentially identity theft, but I would have a lot of caution around that.

It is good to explore those policy options, but we are much more in favour of transparency of labelling. We have suggested an Amendment that is very specific about the way that political deepfakes can be labelled. If you go down the road of criminalisation, you come to a very difficult line about where satire suddenly becomes criminal. Nobody wants to factcheck satire, and nobody wants to make satire illegal.

Again, we have to start looking at some of these things in a slightly different way to take account of the way that technology has made it incredibly easy for anyone to create new information just like that. That is the world in which we are living. Trying to criminalise some of those things would be a dangerous path to go down, but clear labelling—transparency of source—is absolutely key.

Azzurra Moores:

I would echo Chris’s point. We are incredibly grateful to the officials we have spent many months talking to. They have been incredibly constructive and open to hearing these recommendations. We are sitting in front of you because all those recommendations have not made it into the Bill.

Part of the reason Emily has put forward so many amendments is because these issues deserve to be debated by parliamentarians, but they also deserve to be debated by the people they are impacting. A lot of the things we are looking at here will impact every Member around this table, and it is for you to decide how you tackle them.

You have mentioned a couple of Emily Darlington’s amendments, and I want to turn to new Clause 10. You mentioned section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I thought it might be worth clarifying that, while this measure is something she has put forward, with Demos and Full Fact support, it is actually a recommendation that came long before. It came out of the Speaker’s Conference, which I know many members of the Committee were part of, and it is something to which the Government have now responded by saying, “We understand that this is important.”

New clause 10, if anything, is just a vehicle for the Government to action something they have already said could be really valuable. It would not create new law or new bounds to discuss free speech; all it would do is say that deepfakes exist as a medium through which you must not make false statements about another candidate. It is a very simple Amendment that asks the Government to publish legal guidance, so that there is no uncertainty among officials, regulators or the police. It is quite a simple approach, and that is what we have felt is the most important way forward. These things have been discussed for a long time, and the amendments are allowing them to be discussed within the scope of the Bill.

Q I notice that quite a considerable number of Labour Members have signed new Clause 10, so let’s hope that when we get to Report, they put their money where their mouths are and vote for it, if it is selected.

Very quickly, as I know other people want to ask questions, I can see why people would want to support new clause 24’s repository of digital political advertising. One of the drawbacks that I think we can see in the new clause, which I want to strengthen, is that the Electoral Commission obviously will have responsibility for establishing a repository of paid-for digital political advertising within the 72-hour window. Where do you both think is the ideal location for that repository? Where would it sit? Would it sit with a Government Department or in a Government agency? Who would be the regulator, and who would be the manager and data controller of that repository? Do you have a preference for how that might be legislated for, such as in a new Amendment?

Azzurra Moores:

Our original preference was for this to sit with ofcom. To be frank with the Committee, when this Amendment was tabled, there was pushback on including any new powers for Ofcom in the Bill. At the moment, new Clause 24 puts those powers on the Electoral Commission, and I personally do not mind who holds that power. I do not think it particularly matters, and it is really for Members to decide themselves.

What matters are the principles that we are trying to discuss here. We want to give voters the ability to verify whether a political ad is real, and we want to allow them to do that in real time. We have given scope for 72 hours, but we would obviously hope that it would be sooner. We also want those adverts to be transferred to the National Archives so that, in years to come, we understand how elections were fought.

Who holds or pays for that? I think that is really a matter for the Committee. We can discuss in detail whether it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, but I think we need to make sure that we agree on the principle that elections are no longer fought just in person; they are fought online, and we therefore need really stringent measures to understand how elections were fought in years to come.

Chris Morris:

But I would argue that it should not be a Government Department, which you suggested as a possibility. I think it should be ofcom or the Electoral Commission, and I think the Electoral Commission would be happy to take on that responsibility. Again, it comes back to the issue of transparency, as people deserve to be able to see what is there. It is important not only for researchers but for ordinary voters, because they are bombarded from so many angles with advertising of various kinds. Creating a repository would be a big democratic step forward.

I would be one of the people sad enough to go to the National Archives to look at them, so I am fully in favour of it.

Azzurra Moores:

Me too.

Chris Morris:

See you there.

Q Chris, you very ably pointed out how technology moves at breakneck speed and takes us forward, and it has been recognised that our electoral system is not keeping pace with it. Is there any way in which either of you feel that the Bill takes us forward and brings us up to speed—anything at all?

Chris Morris:

It is not all doom and gloom. If we take the example of digital imprints, measures have been taken to extend the digital imprint regime. Our argument is simply that it does not go far enough, and it should go further. For example, it should cover things like fake newspapers or websites, which can be set up in seconds, that do not include their political party affiliation. The digital imprint regime is being slightly improved by the Bill, but it is simply not ambitious enough.

We also have to think not just of 2026, but of 2029. If you look at how technology has changed since the last General Election in 2024, it is almost in a different league. I regularly ask my head of AI, “Where are we going to be in three years’ time?”, and he usually says, “I’m not sure where we are going to be in three months’ time.” We need to have the flexibility to make sure that the measures are as wide as possible, because even if we broaden them in the way that we suggest to include a wider variety of things, by 2029 we may be looking back and saying that it probably was not enough.

Azzurra Moores:

It is very hard to disagree with Chris. The imprints work is huge progress. Obviously, it could go further, but I appreciate that a lot of the things we are asking for were not in scope when the Bill was being drafted. Does it cover the issues we are talking about? No, because it never intended to. That is where we are saying there is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and be wider.

While it may have started with a narrow scope, perhaps once you hear what Philip Rycroft says through his review—and read our amendments slightly further—it will be appreciated that there is an opportunity to say, “How else can we make the Bill safeguard elections for the future?”

Chris Morris:

To add to that, on a slightly different part of the legislation, it is good that the Electoral Commission will have greater powers on information sharing and enforcement, but we would like to see it have greater powers on information gathering.

There is a bit of a gap on who is responsible for regulating in that area. We would have liked to see that covered in the Online Safety Act 2023 and given to ofcom. That did not happen, but one thing that could and should happen in this legislation is giving the Electoral Commission the power to compel people to hand over information or documents really quickly, such as in the heat of an election campaign, without having to turn it into a formal investigation, which as you probably know is laborious and takes time. A lot of this is about agility as well as transparency.

Q For transparency, I have met representatives of Full Fact in preparation for the Bill.

I want to talk about doxing, and my understanding is that it is not currently within the scope of the Bill. For anyone who is not on top of doxing, it is where information is gathered about you and then dropped online so that people can find out where you live and other information. Given that the Speaker’s Conference and the Crown Prosecution Service have both spoken out about how important it is to address this, do you feel that it is a problem that doxing is not currently in or addressed by the Bill?

Azzurra Moores:

What you are trying to address is the issue of online harassment. Doxing is one part of it, but online harassment takes many shapes. I certainly do not need to describe that to members of the Committee, who will have experienced it themselves.

We definitely feel that tackling online harassment is a massive missed opportunity in the Bill. For those of you who might have followed the work of the Online Safety Act Network, it has proposed a new code to tackle online abuse and harassment during elections. Again, that has not been tabled as an Amendment to the Bill, partly because it was felt to be out of scope.

When looking at in-person harassment, we also need to understand that those in-person threats happen digitally as well. Certainly, the issues you are raising, such as doxing, could fall under that code. As I said, it is not something that has been tabled, partly because of the narrow scope of the Bill, but I encourage Members to look to that and perhaps have representatives from the Online Safety Act Network come in to give evidence.

Q Can I go on to the issue of online attacks on candidates, their families and people involved in elections? Social media platforms play a massive role in the distribution of things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes. Is there more that the Bill could do to put a requirement on social media platforms to act more swiftly to address those issues?

Chris Morris:

My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways.

Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory.

As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media.

One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing.

Azzurra Moores:

Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed.

While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.

Q Thank you both for your work. You have made a powerful case for the danger of not better regulating disinformation. Can you share any lessons observed from how other countries have perhaps done this better? We have talked about the proposal for a repository of digital adverts. We have talked about deepfake labelling. What about other forms of disinformation, such as bot campaigns?

Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint Laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation?

Azzurra Moores:

There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the Amendment paper, that is new Clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington.

Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step.

I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that.

On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that.

We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”

You have 10 seconds.

Chris Morris:

To add to that, Full Fact first put forward the idea of a critical election incident protocol in 2022, and really nothing has been done. The problem we have is that there are plenty of people working on this behind the scenes—the joint election security preparedness unit and the defending democracy taskforce—but it is all very much being done in the shadows. This is not always a case of democracy dying in darkness; this is about democracy under threat in the bright blue backlit light of a million scrolling phones.

That is the scale of the challenge we are facing now. It is not just about making sure we have an electoral framework that is fit for purpose; it is about making sure that there is a public perception that it is fit for purpose. That is why the issue of transparency is so important. If there were to be a major information incident—by that, we mean in the last days of the campaign, clear evidence emerging of a concerted attempt to alter the course of the outcome of an election in some way or another—the more transparent and public the process is for revealing that, the better.

That brings us to the conclusion of this evidence session. I thank both witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.