By Andy The Gabby Cabby | 13 November 2026
Something rather extraordinary happened in the House of Commons this week.
A Liberal Democrat MP stood up and proposed changing the way English ethnicity is recorded on the national census.
His proposal had the backing of MPs from several political parties.
He made his speech, the Deputy Speaker put the question to the House, and the proposal was allowed to proceed to its first reading.
Not a single MP delivered a speech opposing it.
And while this does not mean the law has changed, I believe it raises some important questions about English identity, democratic accountability and the difference between nationality and ethnicity.
Because this is not simply an argument about adding a few words to a government form.
It's about how England defines, records and understands its national and ethnic identity.
What is the St George's Bill?
On Tuesday 10 November, Josh Babarinde, the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne and president of his party, introduced the English Ethnic Identity (Census Particulars) Bill under Parliament's Ten Minute Rule procedure.
Babarinde described his proposal as the St George's Bill.
Its intention is to allow people to identify using descriptions such as Black English, Asian English and Mixed English within the ethnicity section of the census.
Currently, the census in England lists English within a combined ethnic group category under White.
Other categories include descriptions such as Black British and Asian British.
Babarinde argues that people from minority ethnic backgrounds who regard themselves as English should have equivalent options.
In his speech, he explained that he was born and raised in England, has Nigerian heritage and considers himself English.
He also condemned the racial abuse and death threats he said he had received over the proposal.
Let me be clear about something.
Threatening somebody because of a political disagreement is completely unacceptable.
Neither threats nor personal abuse should have any place in this debate.
But rejecting that behaviour doesn't mean we should avoid examining the legislation itself.
Why did nobody oppose it?
This is the part of the parliamentary proceedings that caught my attention.
Under the Ten Minute Rule procedure, an MP can introduce a proposed piece of legislation and explain its purpose.
Another MP may speak against the motion.
In this instance, no MP took that opportunity.
The proposal was therefore agreed without a recorded division and received its first reading.
That does not mean every MP supported it.
It doesn't even mean every MP was present.
But it does mean nobody used the available opportunity to deliver an opposing speech in the chamber.
And I find that surprising.
The subject of English identity has become a major political argument.
Politicians regularly discuss nationalism, patriotism, cultural identity and immigration.
Yet when a proposal concerning the recording of English ethnicity reached Parliament, nobody stood up to question its implications.
Surely a subject this sensitive deserves examination from more than one perspective.
Who supported the proposal?
The parliamentary record identifies several MPs as sponsors alongside Josh Babarinde.
They include David Lammy, James Cleverly, Mark Pritchard, Ben Obese-Jecty, Adam Jogee, Victoria Collins, Munira Wilson and Layla Moran.
In other words, the proposal attracted support from Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians.
That's significant.
It demonstrates that the proposal is not simply an isolated initiative from one Liberal Democrat MP.
There is interest in the issue across party lines.
But cross-party support should not be mistaken for universal agreement.
And it certainly shouldn't remove the need to examine potential consequences.
National identity and ethnicity are not the same question
This is where I believe the debate becomes particularly important.
The census already allows people to identify as English under its separate national identity question.
That option has existed since 2011.
People can identify as English regardless of which ethnic group they select.
The Office for National Statistics deliberately records national identity and ethnic group separately.
That distinction serves a purpose.
National identity can describe someone's sense of belonging, their relationship with a country and how they understand themselves.
Ethnicity can involve family background, cultural identity, ancestry and other characteristics.
These concepts can overlap, but they are not necessarily interchangeable.
Babarinde's proposal concerns the ethnicity question, not the existing national identity question.
So my question is this:
What additional information will these proposed categories collect, and how will that information be used?
That deserves a serious answer.
What would happen to the census statistics?
According to the 2021 census, 74.4% of residents of England and Wales identified within the combined White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British ethnic category.
In 2001, the equivalent proportion was 87.5%.
Those figures have been widely discussed in debates about demographic change.
But there's an important qualification.
The category combines several national descriptions and does not measure the number of ethnically English people separately.
It would therefore be inaccurate to treat those percentages as a precise measure of the English ethnic population.
This is one of the weaknesses in the current data.
My concern about introducing new classifications is that they must be designed in a way that preserves meaningful comparisons over time.
If census categories change, statisticians need to explain how the new results relate to the old ones.
Otherwise, we risk creating a situation where people argue over demographic trends using figures that are no longer directly comparable.
That doesn't automatically make the proposed changes wrong.
But it does mean the consequences deserve proper examination before they are introduced.
What does the Office for National Statistics say?
The ONS has previously researched how ethnicity questions are understood by different communities.
Its work on the 2021 census found that changing category descriptions could create confusion for some respondents.
Researchers also found that national identity and ethnic background are best measured through separate questions.
That's relevant to this proposal.
Would someone with Caribbean family heritage who considers themselves English select Black English, Black Caribbean or another category?
Would changing the options affect how ethnic ancestry is recorded?
Could additional choices improve the information collected, or make it more difficult to compare communities consistently?
These aren't unreasonable questions.
They are exactly the sort of practical issues that should be examined by statisticians and Parliament.
I would want the ONS to publish a detailed assessment before any changes were made.
What about Scotland and Wales?
Supporters of the Bill point out that Scotland and Wales already use categories which explicitly recognise identities such as Scottish Asian and Black Welsh.
Babarinde argues that England should offer similar choices.
That's an argument worth considering.
But England also has a different constitutional position within the United Kingdom.
Scotland has its own Parliament.
Wales has the Senedd.
England has no separate national parliament, first minister or equivalent devolved government.
For someone like me who believes England should have stronger national democratic representation, that matters.
We're discussing the identity of England within a Parliament that also legislates for the wider United Kingdom.
I would much rather see this debate conducted openly, with the people of England given a meaningful voice.
Whatever view somebody holds about Englishness, decisions about how it is officially recorded should be transparent and accountable.
The history of English identity
In his Commons speech, Babarinde referred to England's long history of migration and cultural change.
He mentioned the Angles, Danes, Normans, Huguenots, the Windrush generation and Ugandan Asians.
His argument was that English identity has developed over centuries and has never been based on one completely unchanging population.
There is historical substance to the observation that England has experienced successive periods of migration and cultural development.
But there is also room to debate what those historical experiences mean for modern national identity.
The arrival of medieval settlers, religious refugees and modern Commonwealth migrants occurred in very different circumstances.
They shouldn't automatically be treated as identical historical events.
Neither should disagreement about the meaning of those events be used to dismiss questions about England's heritage.
I believe England has a distinctive history, culture and identity worth preserving.
That belief should be capable of being discussed without abuse or threats against people who understand Englishness differently.
The response from Rupert Lowe and others
The controversy has also prompted opposition from politicians who believe English ethnicity should remain distinct from broader national identity.
Rupert Lowe has publicly defended the existence of the English as a distinct people.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, now with Reform UK, has also argued that she considers herself British rather than ethnically English because of her family's heritage.
Other politicians take a different view.
Reform chairman Zia Yusuf has argued that people such as former England footballer Ashley Cole can properly be described as English.
These disagreements demonstrate that the argument extends across political parties.
There isn't even a single universally accepted position among politicians who often speak about patriotism and national identity.
That's another reason why the issue deserves serious parliamentary debate.
Has the Bill become law?
No.
The Commons agreed to allow the Bill to be introduced on 10 November.
It received its first reading as Bill 178.
A second reading was listed for Friday 23 April 2027, St George's Day, although parliamentary scheduling and the Bill's online status require confirmation before treating that date as a definite future debate.
Ten Minute Rule Bills rarely become law without significant parliamentary support or government assistance.
The existing census rules therefore remain unchanged.
That is an important distinction.
The controversy concerns a legislative proposal and the principles behind it, not a change already imposed on the public.
My view: English identity deserves an open debate
For me, the most troubling aspect of this episode is the absence of a substantive opposing argument in the House of Commons when the proposal was introduced.
We have a serious disagreement about the meaning of English national and ethnic identity.
Some people regard Englishness primarily as ancestry and a historical ethnic identity.
Others see it as a national identity that can encompass people from different ethnic backgrounds.
Many distinguish between those two meanings depending on the context.
Whatever your personal view, these questions cannot be settled simply by changing a census category without discussing the implications.
I'd like to see several things before any proposal progresses.
First, a proper explanation from the ONS of how the proposed categories would work.
Second, an assessment of how changes would affect existing demographic statistics.
Third, a full parliamentary debate in which supporters and critics can examine the proposal without personal attacks.
And fourth, recognition that the people of England have a legitimate interest in decisions about how their national identity is represented.
Final thoughts
Josh Babarinde has certainly started a debate.
But I don't believe Parliament has yet had the debate it needs.
This should not be reduced to a contest between accusations of racism and accusations of national erasure.
It is possible to oppose racial abuse while asking serious questions about ethnicity, identity and official statistics.
And it is possible to value English history and heritage while acknowledging that people understand national belonging in different ways.
My view remains that English national identity and English ethnic ancestry should be discussed clearly and distinguished where appropriate, rather than allowing political slogans to decide what statistical categories should mean.
The question I would put to Parliament is straightforward.
If the proposed change is genuinely beneficial, why not subject it to a full and open debate?
Because something as important as English identity deserves more than ten minutes.
Watch my full video
In my latest Andy The Gabby Cabby video, I examine Josh Babarinde's Commons speech, the MPs supporting the St George's Bill, the distinction between English nationality and ethnicity, and the reaction from Rupert Lowe and other politicians.
Watch the full video — Andy The Gabby Cabby
Official sources and further reading
UK Parliament — English Ethnic Identity (Census Particulars) Bill
ONS — Development of national identity and ethnic group questions for Census 2021
Politics.co.uk — Parliamentary debate and cross-party support for the St George's Bill
This article contains opinion and political commentary alongside published parliamentary proceedings and official census information. Legislative status reflects information reviewed on 13 November 2026.
