West Country Bylines has recently highlighted how Brexit is affecting the language teaching sector in the UK, with dire impacts on school trips abroad and on the TEFL sector in the UK. Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) has also, for many years, provided many British people with an opportunity to move abroad, selling one of the UK’s most valuable assets: our global language! For countless people from the UK, TEFL has been their gateway to Europe.

A tale of three teachers, by Bremain Council Member Helen Johnston for West Country Bylines. 

Francine Anne Coello White moved from the UK to Spain in 1975 with a work contract as a primary teacher in a private school.

In 1995, John Bentley moved to Spain on a one-way ticket. He had no job, no Spanish and just £500.

25-year-old Edinburgh music graduate Hakan Auchinleck-Onal is a qualified TEFL teacher with experience teaching online for a Chinese language school. He was hoping to use his qualifications and experience to move to Barcelona. But as soon as he started investigating what he would need to do to find work, he hit a wall. Asking for advice on a Barcelona English teachers’ Facebook group, he was repeatedly told not to bother. Demand for teachers has not recovered yet to pre-Covid levels, and there are enough already in the country who meet the residency or citizenship requirements. He is now considering southeast Asia, as it would probably be easier to find teaching work there than in the EU at present: “being a recent university graduate who is eager to live and work in Europe” he says, “Brexit has made it extremely difficult with the end of freedom of movement”.

September is the start of a new academic year and, all over Spain, language academies are reopening their doors after the Covid crisis, and recruiting for new teachers. A quick scroll through the job advertisement sites confirms Hakan’s experience, with school after school specifying that applicants must be EU nationals, or already have permission to work in Spain.

A recent survey of recruiters by tefl.com found “the majority reported that, prior to Brexit, teachers were employed on the basis of their qualifications and experience, not nationality”. A current right to work in the EU was, however, taken into account. As third country nationals, British teachers no longer have that automatic right, and must obtain a work permit.

Catch-22

Many people considering the big move abroad had to put their plans on ice in 2020 because of Covid travel restrictions. This was particularly calamitous for potential migrants from (or to) the UK, as the freedom of movement door closed on 31 December 2020.

In order to get a work permit, you must have a prior job offer, and the employer must demonstrate that no suitably qualified EU national is available to fill the position. The visa takes months to obtain and the costs are prohibitive for both employer and employee.

But surely there must be a way for British teachers to move to Spain after Brexit? After all, Americans, Canadians and Australians have been coming here for years. So how do they do it?

The simplest way seems to be on a student visa. Spain allows foreign students to work for up to 20 hours a week. A student visa can be renewed for up to three years, so if you combine studying, which could include Spanish courses, advanced teaching qualifications, or any other subject, you can also work. After three years you can apply for residency.

Richard Davie runs TEFL Iberia, a teacher training company in Barcelona which has produced a useful guide to beating Brexit. They offer study packages including an initial TEFL certificate course, and ongoing Teacher Development courses, that qualify participants for a 12-month student visa. After an “extremely challenging 2020”, he says there is a lot of pent-up demand, “but young Brits definitely have to get used to this new reality of restrictions on study and movement. It will be difficult because there’s an entire generation of people who have been used to [freedom of movement], that’s all they’ve known. And all of a sudden they have to do a ton of paperwork to be able to come.”

The school has been helping Americans, Australians and non-Europeans through the process for many years, breaking it down to a step-by-step process. “Contact this person, fill in this form, send this here, get this translated. We have helped people through the process successfully, but the really restrictive thing is the cost, which will, sadly, filter out people with lower incomes.”

These costs include:

Student visa (£174 for 6-12 months)
Course fees (€1,200 (£1035 approx) for twelve months at TEFL Iberia)
Health insurance (approximately €400/£345 a year)
Medical certificate (charges vary)
Criminal background check carrying the Hague Apostille (£60)
Translations (£90 – £120 per document)
Evidence of funds (€564.90/£487 in the bank for every month in Spain)

The student visa option is useful for young people just starting their teaching careers. Twenty hours a week can provide sufficient income if you are prepared to live cheaply, renting a room in a shared flat, splitting bills. But the high costs, and the requirement to demonstrate you have sufficient financial resources to support yourself, mean you must either have substantial savings, or be able to draw on the bank of mum and dad.

But what if I am already qualified and experienced? I don’t want to be a student again! Is it possible to go to Spain as a tourist, find a job, then go home and obtain a work visa? As Richard explains:

Even if you do find a way to work and become fully resident, there is no onward freedom of movement. If you want to move to another EU country, you will have to start the process all over again, according to that country’s rules.

Richard Davie believes that, while all this may be bad news for aspiring British migrants, it may not be such a bad thing for the TEFL sector in Europe.

The luck of the Irish

Brexit has also put teachers from Ireland in a very strong position: tefl.com reports that the consensus from its research was that teachers from Ireland could now have a greater choice of EU jobs.

Terry Croft is the British owner of The Little School, a private English academy in the pretty town of Altafulla, on the Catalan coast. Naturally, Covid has been a bigger issue than Brexit for her business, but she doesn’t see the restrictions on UK teachers as a major problem for recruitment at present, as 90 per cent of the applicants for teaching posts come from another job in Spain.

She has had some Brexit-related grief recently, however:

None of this stress, for both Terry and her new employee, would have occurred pre-Brexit, but at least, for them, there is a solution, in the form of an Irish passport. It was recently estimated that 6.7 millionBritish citizens could be entitled to Irish citizenship. So, if you are one of the lucky one in ten, and you haven’t already done so, make use of your Irish granny and get that passport to freedom of movement!

A glimmer of hope

Demand for teachers is still picking up after the Covid-19 shutdown of the industry. For the time being, this means employers can recruit from among those already resident in the EU. But the UK has always been the biggest source of “native” English teachers in Europe, and this approach may not be sustainable in the long term. It is unlikely that the Spanish government will create a special exemption for British English teachers, so language schools are going to have to adapt, and that means dealing with the additional paperwork.

So is TEFL still a viable gateway to a new life abroad? Richard Davie would say yes

Ministers are keen to stress there is no fuel shortage and therefore no fuel crisis, just no actual fuel at the pumps, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.Unless you have been asleep at the wheel, you might have noticed a slight problem with fuel supplies at British petrol stations. You may even have noticed a queue of cars waiting to fill up, and perhaps even causing minor traffic problems. But have no fear, there’s no need to panic, according to the prime minister, as there is no fuel shortage. Or, as Nadine Dorries, newly promoted DCMS minister put it, “THERE IS NO FUEL SHORTAGE!”

There is no fuel shortage.

I repeat,

THERE IS NO FUEL SHORTAGE!!

🚗

— Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) September 24, 2021

No fuel shortage – just no fuel at the pumps

Dorries was not alone, however. Other ministers were also keen to make the exact same point, even if the number of exclamation points used or the use of shouty capital letters varied. These included James Cleverly – the most inappropriately named minister in Westminster – and Grant Shapps.

The transport secretary told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that – and this is going to come as a surprise – there is “no shortage of fuel”, and people should be “sensible” and only fill up when they need to. This from the same transport minister that told us, just a few days ago, that Brexit was not the cause of the lorry driver shortage, but the solution to all of our supply chain issues.

While it may be the case that there is no UK-wide shortage of petrol and diesel, there is clearly a shortage of fuel where it matters – at the petrol pumps. Social media – which has been critical of government messaging on the subject – has been filled with photos of closed petrol pumps, and even a few closed petrol stations. Even the mainstream media has been on the case.

Government propaganda denies reality

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is not exactly known for being proactive, or for saying or doing the right thing at the right time. Johnson’s recent suggestion that the British public do not panic buy, has only fuelled – no pun intended – the exact actions he presumably hoped to avoid.

The fact that the government is claiming there’s no fuel crisis is par for the course, in the same way they act as though covid is all over, and Brexit never caused anyone, any industry, anywhere, any harm at all.

Somebody in government has decided that the way to stop panic buying is to get ministers to do some identical message-tweeting saying THERE IS NO FUEL SHORTAGE (caps courtesy of @NadineDorries ) This is the same model used to defend Cummings/Barnard Castle and Hancock/gropegate

— ALASTAIR CAMPBELL (@campbellclaret) September 24, 2021

The Brexit denial extends to the damaging shortage of qualified HGV drivers, which the government insists is a global issue. Of course, the government’s understanding of the word ‘global’ – as in Global Britain – is well known, and not one shared by the international community.

Whether it accepts the real reasons for the lorry driver shortage – a combination of elements including covid and, most definitely Brexit – the government’s proposed solutions seem destined to fail. With a shortage of around 100,000 drivers, the issuing of 5,000 temporary visas seem ridiculous even by the government’s own standards.

But, to give the government its due, the temporary visas are not the only (daft) trick up its sleeve. It is also sending out one million letters to retired/ex HGV drivers in the hope of tempting them back, to save Christmas.

Just why an EU-based lorry driver would be interested in applying for a temporary visa is a question the government has failed to ask. The conditions in Europe are better, there are no border issues to contend with, and they are treated with considerably more respect.

That’s without the appalling Go Home Office toxic immigration policies, and treatment. Or the memories of all those poor EU drivers stuck in the UK last winter, unable to get home to their families for Christmas. Throwing more money at the problem – a typical Conservative Party approach to many a problem – is not the answer.

Where’s the planning in all this?

Labour leader Keir Starmer said the situation showed “a complete lack of planning” by the government. With regard to the 5,000 temporary visas, he said, “We have to issue enough visas to cover the number of drivers that we need”. But the British Chamber of Commerce said it best, describing the measures as “throwing a thimble of water on a bonfire”.

Planning has never been this government’s strong point. Even when there has been a plan, it’s been lacking in detail, or secret, but reactive and late. We haven’t even felt the full force of Brexit restrictions yet, as the government is, as always, not ready. Fuel crisis, what crisis? THERE IS NO CRISIS!!!

On the BBC they’ve just said only 1% of petrel stations are suffering a fuel shortage. So there is no actual “fuel crisis”. And given there is no actual fuel crisis, how do people expect ministers to solve the non-existent fuel crisis.

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) September 24, 2021

Anyone ordering goods from the EU in 2021 has likely come in for a nasty shock to the wallet. The advertised price, paid in good faith when ordering online, has not been the end of the story, or to the costs. The same has applied to EU residents or businesses ordering goods from the UK, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

British citizens living in the EU and receiving gifts from friends and family have also been hit with customs charges post-Brexit. The unanticipated costs have made shopping online from UK companies a habit many are now breaking in favour of local, or EU-based, online suppliers.

Additional costs of ordering goods from the EU

With Christmas approaching, consumer rights organisation Which? is warning shoppers to be aware of additional charges when buying gifts from the EU. Many shoppers have already experienced delays when ordering from the EU, and delivery and handling fees have been up to £300 per shipment. Which? is encouraging those placing orders from the EU to “make sure to check if you will be charged extra fees and read the fine print on the return policies”.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has also issued a warning to the public and business. A spokesperson for HMRC said:

In response to the government messaging, Which? spokesperson Adam French said:

Government messaging fails to mention the EU

While it’s encouraging that HMRC is explaining the issues and warning of the dangers, the EU is not mentioned once in these communications. Instead, HMRC suggests that problems arise when ordering any products from “abroad”. On the government website, ‘Tax and customs for goods sent from abroad’, the only mention of the EU is a link that takes you to a page listing EU countries.

While we might be used to government avoidance of the word Brexit when discussing any negative impacts, it seems that in this context the EU will also simply be referred to in vague or misleading terms.

Whether we know the true extent of import costs, or if they are being captured in UK inflation figures, remains to be seen. What we do know is that Brexit makes buying products from the EU more expensive, complex and unreliable.

Wonder if the cost of shipping stuff from abroad is captured by the "basket" used to calculate inflation? Because Brexit just made buying stuff from the EU much more expensive. But products themselves won't necessarily increase in price. It's shipping/handling that skyrockets.

— Edwin Hayward 🦄 🗡 (@uk_domain_names) January 13, 2021

Customers in the EU are now shopping elsewhere

Many Brits living in the EU have been re-sourcing UK products for some time; any loyalty to UK suppliers dumped for quicker deliveries and cost savings. Sadly, thanks to Brexit, EU businesses are doing the same – finding alternative products and suppliers within the EU, and avoiding unnecessary fees, paperwork and delays.

For the moment, EU goods are being waved across UK ‘borders’, while the UK takes advantage of the remaining Brexit grace periods. ‘Taking back control’ has never looked so ineffective. Meanwhile, UK exporters are not so fortunate, having to contend with the full force of EU restrictions that apply to non-EU members. It seems that the EU was ready for Brexit. The UK, not so much so.

False patriotism limits our horizons

The UK government would prefer the British public to focus their attention closer to home. Whether that’s the UK growing its own food, taking holidays at home, buying British (in old money!), or their latest wheeze – making it a legal requirement for broadcasters to make ‘clearly British’ programmes. Sticking the label ‘Great British’ in front of anything that moves or waving the Union flag at every opportunity may be popular in certain quarters, but its false patriotism and limits our country’s horizons.

The diverse nature of British society was always one of its greatest strengths. The many contributions that immigrants from ‘abroad’ – not just the EU – made to our culture were a joy to behold. That so many non-Brits are now being made to feel unwelcome is one of the saddest aspects of the whole sorry Brexit saga. We may be able to re-source products from other markets – re-sourcing hard-working, committed and skilled immigrants may not prove so easy.

Falling out of love with the Brexit ‘deal’

After months of bombastic and often aggressive rhetoric, Lord Frost’s latest speech, to the British Irish Association last weekend, can have come as no surprise – not least to the EU. He spoke of the “vexed question of the Protocol”, suggesting it was “as controversial as ever”. Although the UK “did not get everything wrong”, he said that, “despite our best efforts, the issue is not settled”

This being the case, we would hate to see what Frost’s worst efforts might look like. Frost denied that his “EU-bashing” was an attempt to rally domestic support. In fact, to behave in such a way would be “grotesquely irresponsible”, he said. Long story short, Frost continues to insist that in order for the protocol to work, “we need to see substantial and significant change” – he means from the EU, of course.

By Monday morning, the media were full of anticipation that the so-called “sausage wars” truce was about to be extended. The expected end to two grace periods – due to expire on 30 September and 31 December – has been of great concern to business and industry, as the harsh realities of Brexit become ever clearer.

Extensions and delays

Additional checks and restrictions have already been delayed once when the UK requested an extension for exporting chilled meats back in June. The EU responded with a package of measures aimed at addressing some of the most pressing issues – it agreed to delay a ban on chilled British meat exports into Northern Ireland until 1 October. European Commission vice-president, Maroš Šefčovič, stressed at the time that the EU was “not issuing a blank cheque” and that the UK would have to “fulfil clear obligations” during the coming three months. Still waiting.

As the UK confirmed its unilateral decision to extend the grace periods – this time “indefinitely” – the EU responded with a statement. They stressed that the protocol was “an integral part of the Withdrawal Agreement”, an agreed solution between the UK and the EU. They reiterated the fact that “both sides are legally bound to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement”.

The Commission added that while it reserved its rights “in respect of infringement proceedings”, they were not moving forward with infringement procedures launched back in March, or taking any further legal action “for now”.

Brexit still isn’t ‘done’

Lord Frost suggested that the grace period extension would give the UK and EU more time to come to an agreement, as well as providing stability for business. Presumably, Frost’s interpretation of “coming to an agreement” involves having cake and eating it, and a lot of flexibility on the EU’s part.

From the other side of the Channel, the EU must be wondering how many times it must repeat “we will not agree to a renegotiation” before the penny drops, or the UK government finally understand how the EU works.

How much easier the whole process of Brexit could have been – and perhaps more friendly and collaborative – had the UK just accepted an extension to the transition period when the EU offered. But then that wouldn’t have got Brexit ‘done’.

Many voters must have had their faith in this government put to the test over recent months. They voted for Brexit based on promises of change, of a better future, of hope. Instead, they now see those that lauded Brexit complaining the loudest about the deal they themselves negotiated.

According to data from Investing Reviews, the UK state pension is a mere 28.5% of pre-retirement earnings – less than half the global average of 58.8%. The low base would be cause for concern on its own, but the threat from the Treasury to remove the “triple lock” protection is adding to existing fears.

What is the triple lock?

The triple lock was a policy commitment announced by the coalition government in 2010 as part of a package of reforms around pensions, which also included a rise in the state retirement age. The triple lock policy recognised that the value of the basic state pension had been falling for many years and sought to protect relative values in one of three ways. Pensions are now uplifted annually in line with price rises, average earnings or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. Hence the “triple lock”.

In recent years, prices and wages have risen slowly, if at all. However, a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility claims a rise of 8% in pension incomes can be expected this year, due to “unusual pandemic-related fluctuations in earnings growth”.

The Treasury view

In June, Treasury select committee Chairman, Mel Stride, suggested that the triple lock should be reduced to a double lock on pensions. He claimed this would relieve any additional pressure on public funds and prevent “unintended consequences”. His suggestion was “to temporarily suspend the wages element of the lock”. He acknowledged that this “might not entirely conform to the Conservative party manifesto” but suggested that most people would “recognise that a potential double-digit percentage increase is unrealistic.”

In July, Chancellor Rishi Sunak was doing the rounds in the media. Despite frequent requests for confirmation, he declined to guarantee that the triple lock would be honoured this year. He told the BBC that the triple lock is the government’s policy, but that he recognised people’s concerns. He said he wanted to make sure that government decisions and systems “are fair, both for pensioners and for taxpayers”.

Although the suggestion is that any suspension of the triple lock would be temporary, the questions that hang over us are, can we trust the government, and how long is temporary? As Age UK’s Policy Manager, Sally West commented:

False economy

For anyone who has been watching this government closely, a threat to abandon a manifesto commitment, however temporarily, will not come as a shock. The penny-pinching antics, when dealing with the low-paid, the under-privileged, or indeed pensioners, is galling. The approach is completely at odds with the billions that have been squandered on ineffective Covid measures, or expensive external consultants.

Of course, any government should be mindful of spending, but to suggest that the “savings” to the public purse, from abandoning the triple lock, are justifiable, is a nonsense. The average pension payment is less than £9,000 a year, with many pensioners receiving less. According to Age UK, over 2 million pensioners in the UK live in poverty, with nearly a quarter having to rely on means-tested benefits to top up their income.

A common argument against triple lock is that it is unfair for younger generations to finance pensions for the elderly. However those receiving state pensions have been paying for that “insurance” all their working lives. Had they not contributed for a minimum of 37 years, they would not be receiving a state pension in the first place.

It is also important to remember that any changes that affect pension incomes are unfair to younger generations too and could hit younger people the hardest. The independent Pensions Policy Institute (PPI) has demonstrated that younger, low-income workers will find it harder to achieve an adequate income in retirement without the protection of the triple lock.

Pensioner betrayal

In August, the government finally confirmed that the triple lock policy is under review. A Treasury spokesperson said, “The Government will confirm next year’s state pension rates in the Autumn”. Former shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell described the threat to the triple lock as a “betrayal of pensioners”, as the Labour left put pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to oppose any “suspension”.

Support for a Treasury triple lock revision is not universal even within the government – not least due to the very real threat from pensioners with an axe to grind. Silver Voices – a campaign group for the over 60s – recently conducted a ballot amongst their members. As a result, they concluded that “the vast majority want us to campaign against the Conservatives at the next election if this manifesto promise is broken.”

Eyes wide open

Whatever the supposed justification, the Conservatives should be very wary about upsetting us silver surfers. Many of us have looked on in horror as taxpayers’ money has been handed out, in the billions, to friends and donors. We have watched the government attempt to lay the blame for all their misdeeds unfairly at the door of Covid. We have witnessed the public being misled, promises being broken, and a government that is unwilling to accept responsibility for its actions.

But pensioners are wide awake now. Our eyes are wide open, and there are millions of us – according to PPI, over 12 million, to be precise. Add to that the disenfranchised pensioners abroad, hoping to regain their voting rights before the next election, and that’s a lot of disgruntled, anti-government voters.

On 26 July 2021, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) launched an inquiry into the elections bill, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines. It is the latest of 13 ongoing inquiries that the House of Commons committee is currently undertaking. The topics being covered by these inquiries include ‘The work of the Cabinet office’, ‘The role and status of the Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Covid 19 vaccine certification’ and ‘The work of the Electoral Commission’.

Scope of the elections bill parliamentary inquiry

The committee aims to look at a number of elements of the controversial bill. These will include:

• provisions on voter ID
• the Electoral Commission
• membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission
• undue influence and electoral intimidation
• the regulation of expenditure for political purposes
• information to be included in digital election material
• overseas voting
• voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens
• changes to postal and proxy voting

Although the government claims the measures proposed in the bill are “necessary to protect the integrity of elections”, the committee recognises there has been criticism from a wide range of organisations, not least, the Electoral Commission itself. Witnesses at the ongoing PACAC inquiry – ‘The Work of the Electoral Commission’ – have already complained of “a complete lack of consultation” on the new proposals.

Committee chair, William Wragg, who was elected to the role in January 2020, spoke of the need to scrutinise the proposals carefully and test the government’s claims. He said:

The elections bill is not all bad, though most of it is

Understandably, much of the criticism aimed at the elections bill relates to the plans for mandatory voter ID at polling booths. This requirement, which the government ‘justifies’ as an aid to (non-existent) fraud prevention, is likely to disenfranchise already marginalised groups.

But one aspect of the bill will have the opposite effect and will enfranchise a group of voters who have long been arbitrarily denied their voting rights – UK nationals who have been living abroad for more than 15 years (of whom I am one). It is therefore a bitter pill for this group to swallow, as our enfranchisement comes at the expense of others equally deserving of a say at the ballot box.

I will not dwell on the many and varied reasons this bill is an abomination. Hopefully, there will be plenty of voices arguing their own case for electoral democracy for others. But I hope that the return of voting rights for Brits abroad – an unfulfilled promise of many a Conservative Party manifesto – is a government promise we can all hold them to.

The call for evidence

The committee is inviting individuals and organisations to submit evidence before 6pm on Tuesday 31 August. Any evidence submitted must be “directly related to the provisions of the Bill or tangential matters on which the Bill is silent”. Currently, the committee is not actively seeking evidence on wider electoral matters.

The committee has provided full instructions on presenting evidence – how to upload it, size, content and what happens to your evidence once submitted. Usually, any evidence received is published online and may be quoted in any future reports. Submissions should not have been published in advance, including in articles, on websites or in blogs.

As chair of the campaign group Bremain in Spain, I will shortly be submitting evidence of our own regarding overseas voting. In our report, we highlight our issues and concerns and make recommendations suggesting ways in which the government could go even further to restore our voting rights, and to restore trust. In addition, we will be supplying many testimonials from our members explaining ‘why my vote is important to me’.

Of course, we will be delighted when the 15-year rule is scrapped and we are all finally able to participate fully in British democracy, but the restoration of our voting rights alone is not enough.

It is important to look at how overseas constituents are represented in parliament. Understandably perhaps, an overseas voter who has not lived in a constituency for a number of years might not be top of their MP’s priority list. MPs may have little or no understanding of the issues that Britons abroad face, especially with all the post-Brexit complications. Dedicated MPs for overseas voters, as they have in France, would be a welcome development.

In addition, we must ensure that the postal voting system, which has so badly let us down in the past, is overhauled and made reliable. To have gone to the trouble of having registered to vote and completed a ballot, only to then have that ballot fail to be counted, is almost worse than not having a vote at all.

It’s all about the timing

The Electoral Commission has recommended longer lead times for postal voting – or better still, the ability to vote online or in the country of residence. Some countries, like Spain and Italy, allow their overseas voters to cast their ballots at their local embassy or consulate – a move that would be most welcome by British citizens abroad. Meanwhile, the online voting system in Estonia is setting records in participation, with over 31 percent of voters completing their ballots online in the 2017 general election.

The biggest concern regarding timing, though, is with regard to the general election itself. The government has stated that these rights will be restored in time for the next ‘scheduled’ election in 2024. However, there has been speculation of an early election in 2023, even from Labour leader Keir Starmer. It is therefore vital that contingency plans are in place to ensure that having got this far, Brits abroad are not denied the right to vote in yet another general election solely because the government moved the goalposts.

The elections bill returns to parliament on 7 September for the second reading in the House of Commons. Due to its controversial nature, it is likely to generate much debate – in parliament and, hopefully, in the media.

Our democracy is under threat from a government that avoids scrutiny like the plague. It is therefore vital that we take every opportunity afforded us to present evidence to ministers and encourage close examination of government plans and actions. If you think the elections bill is a travesty then tell the committee, but please don’t throw the overseas voting baby out with the bathwater.