Things to read

<See Alan e-mails>

The APPG report that proposes a Commission
<based on ChatGPT analysis 09 Dec 25>
The report is Free But Not Fair: British elections and how to restore trust in politics
by the APPG for Fair Elections, published 25 November 2024. This is the report that Identifies FPTP, “dark money” and disinformation as three core threats. Its Recommendation 1 is to establish a National Commission on Electoral Reform, starting work in 2025, to recommend a “fair and democratic voting system in which every vote counts.”

1. … where to find it

Direct links

• APPG’s Fair Elections site contains a summary plus a link to PDF.
• Direct PDF link to the full report
• Mirror / partner link via Open Britain:
  https://www.open-britain.co.uk/ – scroll to “Free But Not Fair: British elections and how to restore trust in politics” and there’s another PDF download.
• Contextual write-ups confirming the “National Commission” proposal:
  • Labour for a New Democracy explainer on the APPG calling for a National Commission for Electoral Reform as part of this report:
    https://www.labourforanewdemocracy.org.uk/news/call-for-national-commission
  • Fair Elections / Open Britain launch piece confirming that Free But Not Fair calls to “establish a National Commission on Electoral Reform in 2025”:
    https://www.fairelections.uk/all-party-group-for-fair-elections-launches-in-westminster/

Separately, in September 2025, the APPG published a more technical follow-up document:

• “National Commission on Electoral Reform: Terms of Reference” – effectively the “ready to go blueprint” for how such a Commission would work:
  https://www.fairelections.uk/national-commission/

That page also links to a Terms of Reference PDF.

2. Is there a written record of the APPG’s preceding deliberations?

Short answer:
There’s no sign of full, formal minutes or a verbatim record of the APPG’s internal deliberations being published in the way a select committee would publish evidence. What is publicly available is a set of surrounding documents and commentary that give you a decent picture of the process and thinking:

a) Secretariat / background description

Fair Vote UK (which acts as the APPG’s secretariat) explains that the APPG builds on earlier consultation-driven research carried out for the old APPG on Electoral Campaigning Transparency, especially the 2020 report Defending Our Democracy in the Digital Age which took evidence from civil society, industry and government.

That’s not a minute-by-minute record of the new APPG’s discussions, but it is part of the intellectual and evidence base they say they’re standing on.

b) Public launch & commentary around Free But Not Fair

A few sources give you a written “trail” of the thinking that led into / accompanied the report:

• Fair Elections / Open Britain launch article – short narrative of the problem (trust, FPTP, dark money, disinformation) and why the APPG is making these three headline recommendations now:
  https://www.fairelections.uk/all-party-group-for-fair-elections-launches-in-westminster/
• Alex Sobel’s PoliticsHome article – written as APPG Chair on the day of launch, summarising the case against FPTP and the need for a National Commission; effectively a political “cover note” to the report:
  https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/government-tackle-distrust-politics-voting-system
• Guardian coverage of the launch – Peter Walker’s piece describing the APPG, its membership and the key demands of the report; again, not deliberation minutes, but a useful contemporaneous account:
  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/25/dozens-of-new-labour-mps-join-group-pushing-for-electoral-reform
• Commons debate references – in the 30 January 2025 Commons debate on Proportional Representation, several MPs reference the APPG and its Free But Not Fair report as setting out the structural problems with FPTP and trust in politics. That’s on Hansard / TheyWorkForYou and gives you some flavour of how APPG arguments were presented in Parliament:
  • Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-30/debates/9F04313C-988A-49F6-92A2-D56225466C08/ProportionalRepresentationGeneralElections

c) Deliberations around the later Terms of Reference

For the 2025 Terms of Reference document, there are a few clues about deliberations:

• The APPG page itself says the ToR were developed “in consultation with leading constitutional experts” with the aim of promoting a national conversation and building consensus.
• A follow-up post on the same site describes a drop-in session on 15 September where MPs and staff discussed the draft Terms of Reference – but again, there’s no published transcript or detailed minutes, just a short summary.
• Bath University’s Institute for Policy Research blog and UCL’s Constitution Unit “Monitor 91” briefly describe the APPG’s proposals and confirm there was consultation with academics and constitutional experts, but they don’t reproduce internal deliberations.

So: there’s a clear written trail of what they decided and why, through:

• the Free But Not Fair report itself;
• launch / commentary pieces;
• Hansard references;
• and the later National Commission Terms of Reference.