Draft European University Institute (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Robert Halfon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European University Institute (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
The primary purpose of the statutory instrument is to reflect in domestic law that the UK is no longer a member of the European University Institute Convention. Our membership ceased when we left the EU. The instrument ensures that no rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that derive from that convention are retained in UK law through the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Those rights that are saved relate to legal proceedings immunity and an income tax privilege for UK-linked staff at the institute. The retention of those rights is appropriate or supports a period of reasonable adjustment for staff. The SI also sets the circumstances after which those rights will no longer apply.
The European University Institute is based in Florence. It is an international centre for postgraduate and post-doctoral studies and research in the social sciences with a European focus. It was established by an international convention in 1972, signed by the UK in 1975. Although the European University Institute is not an EU body, the convention states that accession to the convention is restricted to EU member states. When the UK left the EU, our formal membership also ended.
The UK has been operating under the terms of an interim arrangement with the institute since 2020, while discussions took place to explore the possibilities for future UK participation. That was to ensure that UK staff and students at the institute could continue in their posts and with their studies while we considered options for a future relationship with the institute. That arrangement ends on 31 December 2022.
The UK has held a series of constructive and detailed negotiations with the institute over 18 months, but at this time it has not been possible to conclude an agreement to define future UK engagement. We are now focusing on confirming the status of UK-linked staff and UK-funded students at the institute as soon as possible. The UK will take appropriate measures to allow current students to continue their studies at the institute. We will continue to pay the grants that we committed to for students who started courses already.
The Government value the work of the EUI and the close collaboration that we have shared over the years. Many talented UK students have studied for PhDs at the institute, with financial support from the UK Government. It is an important forum for collaboration on education and research. I want to reassure hon. Members that the UK remains strongly committed to collaborating with our European partners in the field of research. We look forward to reaching an agreed settlement with the institute soon, which will provide for current staff and students. We will then look again at the question of our future relationship.
Under the draft regulations we are considering today, we are taking steps to provide legal certainty by revoking retained EU law relating to the convention. That is either because it no longer has any practical application following the UK leaving the EU and is redundant, or it is no longer appropriate for it to be retained. The SI has no bearing on the UK’s membership of the institute. Its purpose is simply to ensure that no provisions remain in UK law except as appropriate or to provide a period of reasonable adjustment for staff. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir George. Once again, I welcome the new Minister to his post.
Barely a week has passed since the Minister and I sat across from each other in Westminster Hall to debate the contribution of international students to the UK, not just to academia but to our economy. To be fair to the Minister, his words on the value of international students were a very warm and welcome departure from the words of the Home Secretary and her rhetoric on this front. Yet, I cannot help but the notice the irony that, a week on, here we are debating a regulation, albeit procedural, that effectively confirms that talks between the UK Government and the EUI have broken down, thereby denying British students and academics yet another opportunity to benefit from European collaboration, as we heard the Minister say, and co-operation.
The EUI is a postgraduate and post-doctoral research centre that focuses on economics, social sciences, law and history in the European perspective, but it entails looking at our place globally, our relations with other nations and other spheres of influence, understanding those histories and those relationships and how they impact on where we are today. In the context of what is happening to the east of us in Ukraine and Russia’s illegal invasion, and what is happening in the eastern sphere, those relationships and that understanding is incredibly important.
The EUI is based in the Tuscan hills, and is hub of cultural, academic and social exchange, and has been for 900 scholars, including 582 doctoral researchers hailing from EU nation states and associate member state. With the help of state-sponsored scholarships, it has offered the opportunity to eligible students to study at the world-class institute free of charge, with the added potential benefit of additional Erasmus+ funding. It is unique globally as a truly multinational institute of higher education and high-level research. British students who wish to undertake postgraduate study can be expected to pay up to £20,000 at some UK institutions, and for many that is clearly just out of reach. The EUI provided at least one alternative route for some of our brightest minds. Annually, there were between three and 12 UK students at PhD level in the four departments of the EUI. Of course, and perhaps most importantly, many of those UK students were also able to build their network and knowledge base on the international stage at the EUI. That opportunity has now withered on the vine as a result of a bodged Brexit deal.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the collapse of negotiations between the EUI and the UK to secure the UK’s future membership of the institute is that
“in a different climate, there was room for hope.”
Not my words, but those of Professor Dehousse, the EUI president. I really believe that we could have, and should have, succeeded in those negotiations. This unfortunate saga is yet another unnecessary consequence of the embittered breakdown of relations between the UK and the EU. The parallels between that and the UK’s membership of Horizon and associated programmes are plain to see.
On behalf of current UK students and academics at the EUI, as well as of all the UK students who will now not get the chance to experience the EUI, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the following questions. First, the UK contributed €5.34 million to the EUI’s budget. Given that we have ceased membership, where has that money been allocated? Will the Minister commit to using that money to maintain the same number of scholarships available at the EUI for UK students in UK institutions? Secondly, if the Government are really committed to their international education strategy and their aim for a global Britain, does the Minister accept that failure to secure EUI associate membership is harmful to both stated aims, the interests of Britain and, if I may be so bold, our common interests with Europe? In that vein, what steps is the Minister taking to secure future associate membership of the EUI? Can he confirm that negotiations remain ongoing, and what assurances can he give the EUI that they will be conducted in a different, more mutually beneficial tone?
Although I note the Minister’s comments, I believe that withdrawal from such an enlightened institution is regressive and highlights a failure to negotiate successfully. The benefits of international collaboration should be obvious to all of us; the harmful effects of withdrawal even more so. It is not necessary for the UK to retreat from the arena of international research and collaboration as a result of Brexit. I am convinced that where there is a will to find a mutually beneficial agreement in the pursuit of knowledge and collaboration, there is a way. I very hope that the Minister would agree with me, certainly on that last point.
Robert Halfon
I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. On the international situation, he referred to a debate we had in Westminster Hall a week or so ago. I just remind him that we have met the target early; we have 600,000 overseas students in the UK, and that is worth around £25.9 billion a year—more than 60% of our educational exports. I think we should be proud of that. I do not think that demonstrates any withdrawal from that sector and it shows our commitment to international students.
To be clear, the negotiations have not broken down; they are continuing with the EUI. As I said in my opening remarks, the UK Government will continue to pay the grant to which they have committed for students who have already started courses at the EUI. We will retain specific privileges and immunities for EUI staff affected by the UK’s legal position, because either they are UK nationals or they have substantial ties to the UK, in particular the legal proceedings immunity and the income tax privilege, to provide a reasonable adjustment period where that is considered appropriate. I want to be clear that the UK remains committed to strong research collaboration with our European partners, including the EUI. It remains open to exploring other opportunities for collaboration with the EU in future.
The shadow spokesman rightly talked about our funding. We funded grants equivalent to 17.06% of the £30 million budget, contributions made by member states in 2019. As he said, that worked to around £5.5 million per annum, and we funded grants of £18,099 for up to 20 UK students over the first three years of their courses at EUI, with additional allowances. I cannot say any more on the funding, but as we continue our negotiations, I would be happy to write to the shadow spokesman about that.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for that information. On transparency, all we are asking for is some visibility as to where he sees that money going. That is in all of our interests as educators or as those keen to be progressing education. We should ringfence that money to ensure that it stays in the education sphere.
Robert Halfon
As the negotiations continue with the EUI, I am sure that we will be able to provide further details in terms of UK’s contribution to EUI, but I am not able to do that at this point in time.
I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington for his contribution. I know that hon. Members have a keen interest in the UK’s relationship with the EUI. Please let me reassure them that the UK remains committed to strong research collaboration with European partners, and the UK remains open to exploring other opportunities for collaboration with the EUI in future. I think I have set that out quite clearly. I think hon. Members would agree, however, that it is important to have a tidy and coherent statute book following our exit from the EU, so I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The regulations were laid before the House on 17 October. I am pleased to introduce this instrument that, subject to approval, will create the framework in which pensions dashboards will operate.
Pensions dashboards are digital tools that present individuals with their pensions information. The Pension Schemes Act 2021 gave the Government the powers to create these regulations. The regulations place requirements on registerable Great Britain-based occupational pension schemes with over 100 active, deferred or pension credit members, and specify when those schemes must connect to the Money and Pensions Service, or MaPS. The Department for Communities is expected to make corresponding regulations for Northern Ireland. Once connected, pension schemes must follow the requirement to find pensions and send the relevant information to an individual’s chosen qualifying pensions dashboard service.
The regulations provide that the Pensions Regulator may take enforcement action in relation to pension schemes that do not comply. The regulations also cover the requirements to be satisfied in order for a pensions dashboard service to be a qualifying pensions dashboard service, which include connection and functionality, display of view data, reporting and monitoring of the dashboard and enabling an independent person to audit the provider’s dashboard. Further to this, the Financial Conduct Authority has published final corresponding rules in relation to the providers of personal and stakeholder pension schemes, and will be consulting on a regulatory framework for qualifying pensions dashboard services later this year.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The dashboards are to be used by consumers to see how their pensions will evolve over time. Will they be easily accessible? People, particularly those approaching pensionable age—although some are computer-literate, some are not—find so many of these computer programs rather difficult. How accessible will they be?
Laura Trott
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The standards will be consulted on by MaPS and the FCA, but it is absolutely intended that they will be as user friendly as possible. A lot of testing will take place to ensure that that is the case.
The regulations, in combination with a planned order to amend the Pensions Act 2004, will enable MaPS and the Pensions Regulator to disclose information to each other in connection with dashboard functions only. That will support MaPS and the Pensions Regulator in their pensions dashboards programme and compliance roles respectively, and support the secure delivery of the ecosystem and pensions dashboard services. The Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation duties continue to apply to the sharing of information about an individual.
I will briefly revisit why we need pensions dashboards and their potential to change people’s relationships with their pensions. We know about the huge success that automatic enrolment had in getting people saving into a pension, with millions of people now saving. However, research has found that almost three quarters of UK adults have multiple pensions, as people move around the labour market throughout their working life. Some people may not know either who their pension is with, what their pensions are worth or how many pensions they have. Pensions dashboards have the power to change all that.
We have conservatively estimated that reuniting people with lost pensions could be worth £541 million to individuals over 10 years, and it could be much more. The Pensions Policy Institute estimated in its most recent paper on lost pots that the total value could be up to £26.6 billion. Instead of relying on a box of paper under the stairs, pensions dashboards will help individuals to find their lost and forgotten pensions quickly and easily, and all in one place.
We are setting up a brand-new digital service that will connect thousands of individual pensions schemes covering millions of memberships. As Members may expect, a huge amount of work and thought has gone into developing these regulations. We have worked throughout with our delivery partners, the pensions dashboards programme as part of the Money and Pensions Service, the Pensions Regulator, and the FCA. I thank them all for their expert input into this cross-cutting project. We have also gained insight from those in the pensions industry and consumer groups through two public consultations and other fora.
The delivery of pensions dashboards needs to be both timely and operationally manageable for both the pensions dashboards programme and the pensions industry. The regulations set out a phased approach, known as staging, to connect different categories of scheme to MaPS. By prioritising schemes in order of type and membership size, we can maximise the member coverage on pensions dashboards in the shortest possible timeframe. Schemes will connect to the MaPS digital architecture, which is the technology that underpins dashboards. The architecture, and all parties and technical services that connect to it, form the dashboard ecosystem.
All Members are eager to see dashboards made available to the public. The point at which that will happen is referred to in the regulations as the “Dashboards Available Point”. The Secretary of State will issue a notice at least six months ahead of that point, having considered matters such as the coverage of memberships and service levels. This notice will give the pensions industry time to prepare to answer queries resulting from people engaging with their pensions information.
Lastly, it would be remiss of me not to update the House on the delivery of this programme. I am pleased to say that the pensions dashboards programme has delivered the digital architecture underpinning this project, and it is currently testing and refining the service in readiness for schemes to begin connecting from April 2023. Early participants will begin connecting in the new year. We are grateful to schemes for their co-operation, which is helping to prepare the ground and setting an example for others to follow.
I am satisfied that the draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Subject to the view of this House, the approval of the regulations puts us one step closer to delivery for consumers. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. These important regulations potentially affect not only everybody in this room, but everybody in the country, so it is vital that the Government get them right. Labour supports the pensions dashboards policy and today’s statutory instrument, which we hope takes us a stage closer to fruition. However, I have some important questions on both the general principle and some specific points of detail on progress, which the Minister may like to write to me about.
It goes without saying that large IT programmes are subject to a certain amount of risk, and it is important that the Government take that into account. Some of what the Minister said this morning reassures me, but I have some further questions about data quality. I obviously will not go into enormous detail, because such matters are highly technical, but it would greatly reassure pension savers to know a little more about the risk management the Government are undertaking to protect data quality and personal information and to ensure that data is accessible. For example, people often change their name upon marriage or move job multiple times during their working lives, all of which is important to take into account, and the risk of fraud must be minimised. I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate on those points.
In addition, and in support of that previous point, I hope sufficient time will be taken to test the roll-out of this important approach. It involves a large amount of IT, complicated data issues, and the matching up of different databases of information on a large number of people.
I hope the Minister may be able to reassure me on one or two specific points. Is it possible to let pension savers have a better idea of the indexation of pensions? Some defined benefit schemes are fully indexed with inflation, but others partially follow inflation. During this cost of living crisis, it would be of great reassurance to savers to know the future value of their savings. I understand that the Department has so far decided not to include that level of information, so might the Minister be able to look into that and write to me?
I thank you, Mrs Murray, for the opportunity to speak this morning, and I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in due course.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her new post. I know she will do a great job.
I place on the record the SNP’s support for this statutory instrument and will just develop a couple of thoughts on pensions policy. Previously I was the spokesperson for work and pensions and getting dragged into debates like this does feel a bit like “Hotel California” sometimes. One thing I was quite struck by when I was shadowing that post was the complete lack of pensions literacy that exists not just across the country, but sometimes even in the House of Commons.
The pensions dashboard is incredibly welcome; we all want to see it, notwithstanding some of the shadow Minister’s points about the delivery of the IT. If it is to be successful, however, we need to look, in a twin-track way, at things such as making Pension Wise a lot more freely available to folk. Far too many people in their mid-50s are making decisions on pensions without adequate advice and guidance. Frankly, they are making decisions that are financially disadvantageous to them.
I also want a bit more reform of automatic enrolment. I would like the age for automatic enrolment moved from 22 to 16. I left school at 16 and started working, and it would be right and proper for automatic enrolment to be rolled out to those who start in the labour market straight away. I would also like to see it rolled out from the first pound, rather than an arbitrary threshold, but I appreciate that is not the purpose of today’s debate.
When the Pension Schemes Act 2021 was being taken through Parliament, the SNP expressed some concerns about commercial organisations having access to the pensions dashboards. It is on that basis that we would prefer that MaPS be allowed to run it for the first year before we have the extra commercial interest come into play, just as a way of consumer protection.
The instrument is to be welcomed, notwithstanding some of the wider concerns that I have outlined. I very much hope that my constituents, whether in Fullarton Park or right across the east end of Glasgow, can have both dignity and prosperity in retirement. Pensions dashboards will ultimately allow them to do that and will give them a much more informed view of pensions, which everybody across the country must have.
Laura Trott
I am grateful for both Opposition parties’ support for these important regulations.
I will write to the hon. Member for Reading East on some of the specifics, but will just cover some of his points. On the steps being taken to ensure data accuracy on dashboards, it is obviously crucial that the data in front of an individual is accurate. Trustees and managers have existing legal obligations relating to data quality, and all the data is obviously being pulled from existing pension providers. The Pensions Regulator has set out expectations on data quality in its record-keeping guidance. This includes that data are measured at least once a year. The regulator’s guidance on dashboards is also clear that trustees and managers need to ensure that values provided are accurate and urges them to work with administrators to improve data if required.
I absolutely take the hon. Gentleman’s point about changes, including to addresses. They are an issue throughout the pensions system. It is something that we need to do a lot more work on, but I will write back to him on that specific point.
As for testing and the preparedness of the pensions schemes, schemes and administrators must act now, if they have not already, to prepare their data and engage with administrators and other suppliers on how they will meet their legal duties. The Pensions Regulator has already published guidance on practical steps that trustees and schemes managers should be taking now. They are also writing to all pension schemes at least 12 months ahead of the connection deadline with a call to action to ensure that the data they use is accurate and complete. They will contact schemes several times in the run-up to their duties to help them remain on track. I had a meeting with the Pensions Regulator yesterday to discuss exactly such issues, and I will continue to have such meetings to ensure that it is providing all the support it can to schemes.
On testing, there will be a lot of user testing—it is built into the approach. The hon. Gentleman is completely right in his caution about IT schemes. I am sure that he and I will correspond regularly on that, and we need to build testing into the programme.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East asked several questions, and I thank him for his support. The lack of pensions literacy is a big problem. It is, ironically, one of the things that has led to automatic enrolment being a success, but we need to tread the tightrope between making sure that people are as informed as possible and making sure that they are building up their pension pot. I would absolutely like to work with him on advice, guidance and ensuring that people are making the best use of their pension pot.
I should probably have a further conversation offline with the hon. Gentleman about amending the age for automatic enrolment. Automatic enrolment is a success, and we would like to see that expanded, and I would like to have further conversations.
As for MaPS and the dashboard launch, we strongly believe that it is important to have a Government-backed dashboard, and the Government have committed to launching the Money and Pensions Service dashboard from the “Dashboards Available Point”. It will also be the point at which authorised qualifying pensions dashboard services may begin to provide a pensions dashboard service as well, but they are highly regulated, and that again is something we can pick up further through the process.
I know that colleagues across the House care passionately about the success of pensions dashboards, and I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions today. Pensions dashboards will reunite individuals with their lost or forgotten pots and engage potentially millions of savers. It is important that we press ahead with this ambitious project so that savers can realise the benefits. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2022
Draft Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations 2022.
Lee Rowley
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins.
The statutory instruments are a key part of the implementation of the Elections Act 2022, which was debated at some length earlier this year. The Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations are made in consequence of or to make provisions similar to section 9 of the Elections Act 2022. The intent of both section 9 of the Act and these consequential regulations is to improve the support available to disabled voters at polling stations, and they do that in two ways. First, they replace the existing requirements to provide a single prescribed device to assist blind and partially-sighted voters with a broader, better requirement that returning officers provide equipment to assist a wider range of disabled voters, so that they can cast their votes independently. They also revoke the reference to that device for UK parliamentary elections where its description is already included in the secondary legislation. Secondly, they remove the unnecessarily restrictive requirement that anyone assisting a disabled voter be either a close family member of that voter or an elector themselves with a requirement that the person assisting be 18 or over. That will allow people to more easily get support to cast their vote where the person is best placed to support them, and where that person may not have met either of the two previous criteria.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I support the two SIs, and I hope that all colleagues and hon. Members support them. It is good that we are giving greater ability to blind and other disabled people to vote in an easier manner. I do question whether the Department considered still allowing candidates and agents to take blind people into polling stations to assist them to vote. I am sure that the Minister agrees that democracy and its processes need to not only be done properly, but be seen to be done properly. Could that arrangement not give rise to the perception, at least, that unfair persuasion was being placed on an individual?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I understand the challenge that he makes. I will say two things. First, the part of the process that we are talking about is essentially a mechanical one; it is about ensuring that the people who are in need of support can get to the place where they can vote, and the part of the process where people are making decisions will likely be independent of that. There are a range of devices, talked about separately, which will be available so that the individual is able to vote and is supported in the way that they need. Secondly, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with clarification on his specific point, if that would be helpful. A piece of draft guidance has already come out, which the Electoral Commission has put forward with regard to some elements of these orders, and further guidance will be coming forward. There will potentially be an opportunity, where my hon. Friend or others have concerns about the more intricate details, to clarify them through the Electoral Commission guidance in the future.
The changes are made to UK parliamentary elections by the Elections Act 2022, and the instrument makes equivalent changes across a range of other polls, including most mayoral elections, local authority governance referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums in England, along with police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales and MP recall petitions across the UK.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm it is the Government’s policy to have police and crime commissioner elections, particularly in the west midlands?
Lee Rowley
Police and crime commissioners have been an established part of the electoral landscape of the United Kingdom since 2012. I cannot comment on individual areas, but there is always a debate about how things are organised—Members should not read anything into that. The principle of police and crime commissioner elections is seeded. Those elections are utilised and are making differences on a daily basis across the country.
The proposed changes are being replicated at other polls, including at English local elections, Greater London Authority elections and London mayoral elections. Separate secondary legislation following a negative procedure will be laid before the House in due course to cover those. The instruments today are essential to ensure that improvements to support disabled voters in the polling stations introduced by the Elections Act are applied consistently across all polls reserved to the UK Government.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
On page 3 of the explanatory memorandum on assistance with voting, paragraph 10 refers to the consultation outcome’s 256 responses, which is fantastic. I think the most important outcome was that from local authority election teams, and we have very good election teams in Blaenau Gwent in south Wales, my home constituency. I just want to check that the proposals were consistent with the views of the local authority election teams. If they were not, what is the difference? I am interested in what their response was to the consultation.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point. As the Committee is aware, a range of views is expressed through consultations. There is an absolute desire on the part of the Government to take all of them into account. We will not be able to agree by default with everybody because of the difference of views, but on the specific points raised, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the outcome.
The draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2022 has two purposes. First, it amends the spending rules for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales to replicate amendments already made by the Elections Act. The changes will bring clarity to candidates and their agents with regard to what they need to report in terms of benefits in kind—property, goods, and services or facilities that are provided for the use or benefit of the candidate at a discount or for free—relating to those that they have actually used or that they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf.
In combination with expanded statutory guidance from the Electoral Commission, which is provided for by this order, the changes will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel confident in doing so and be more clear in their legal obligations.
Secondly, the order also inserts two additional welfare benefits into the list of qualifying benefits for proxy vote applications for police and crime commissioner elections. That will ensure that disabled people in receipt of new welfare benefits in Scotland, who have recently moved from Scotland, will be able to make a proxy vote application at a PCC election without the need for it to be attested while a decision is pending on an equivalent welfare benefit in the new jurisdiction where they now reside.
It is our view that it is important that the rules be updated in relation to police and crime commissioner elections to ensure consistency and fairness across the law, that candidates and agents can discharge their responsibilities with confidence, and that disabled electors get the support that they need in UK elections.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins.
The two measures before us relate to extending provisions from the Elections Act to the rules regarding police and crime commissioner elections and also assistance with voting for people with disabilities. Let me say from the outset that the Opposition strongly opposed the Elections Act at all stages before it became law a few months ago. It was a bad Bill then, and it is bad law now. Rather than opening up our democracy, it has created barriers to participation, while further weakening it to dodgy finance.
Our serious concerns with the legislation have been shared by civil society and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its excellent report on the Bill, when it said that the Bill ought to have been paused. That has been added to by yesterday’s revelations that the Government have not even assessed the security implications of the most prominent part of the legislation, voter ID provision, which is yet another discreditable element to this story. We look forward to the chance to revisit that soon—I think it is coming before us soon.
Happily, however, Members of all parties agreed with the provisions that the Act made in relation to notional expenditure. Following the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that there was no requirement that benefits in kind or notional expenditure would have to be authorised by the candidate or their election agent, the rules regulating that area of election law were a point of confusion and required clarification. It is safe to say there were serious concerns that candidates and their agents could unwittingly be liable for any transgressions that they had no knowledge of and had never authorised, but from which they were judged to have benefited. It was therefore right to tidy up the law in relation to notional expenditure in the Elections Act, and the Opposition did not stand in the way of those measures when the Act was before Parliament. In the same spirit, we will not stand in the way of applying the same provisions to the elections of police and crime commissioners, so that the full benefit of the change to the law can be implemented and operational across all elements.
On the second measure, regarding assistance with voting for persons with disabilities, I praise the work done in the other place by my colleagues Baroness Hayman and Lord Khan, who worked very hard to make sure that it was included in the Elections Act. We raised this issue in Committee and during consideration of the remaining stages of the Act, and stakeholders expressed their concerns about the initial proposals. As I said on Report, we are grateful that the Government have listened to those concerns and worked with advocacy groups to reach a solution, which is what I believe we have in front of us. The Opposition therefore fully support the measure, which will ensure that the regulations can be felt widely across all elections, but like many interested in this space, we will keep a close eye on things to make sure that its practical application works. The collective vision is that all polling stations should have the right equipment, so that people can access their democratic right regardless of the challenges they live with, and we would be very interested to see how that works.
I hope the Minister is able to indicate how he and his colleagues will monitor this issue to make sure that the approach proceeds as intended. Will there be a report after the first iteration? That would be a proportionate way of working out whether it is working. Have the Government committed in the engagement with stakeholders that this will be an ongoing process? That virtuous feedback loop will be a key part of making sure that the legislation works. Finally, there is a funding implication for the Minister’s welcome commitment in the Elections Act and today about making the equipment available, so can he make an on-the-record commitment that that will be met and that local authorities will not be expected to find the money in other ways?
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Turning briefly to the points that he made, I welcome his support for the two SIs that we are debating, even if we have fundamental differences about the broader position with regards to the Elections Act, which can be debated in alternative places at alternative times.
On the hon. Gentleman’s two questions about how we will ensure that the changes being introduced through the SIs work and do the things that we hope, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is happy to commit to reviewing that in the future. We obviously need the opportunity for the legislation to work, and the focus in the coming months will be to make sure that the guidance is accurate and as helpful as possible. We will then review the output once the first elections have taken place, but I am happy to say that the Department will absolutely return to this issue in order to confirm that the SIs have worked in the way that was intended, and to look at whether any learnings can be made accordingly.
In terms of this being part of an ongoing process, we want to make sure that there is a continuous conversation about the integrity and appropriateness of our election processes, and we are happy to return to that in the months ahead and beyond. I am also very happy to do that from my perspective of having responsibility for elections in the Department. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some assurances that this will absolutely be a continuous conversation and that, as all good governance requires, there will be a continuous review of whether things are working appropriately, proportionately and properly.
On that basis, I hope that members of the Committee are willing to assent to both of the statutory instruments in front of them today. The first one will ensure that police and crime commissioner elections are aligned with the changes that have already been agreed for other elections in primary legislation, and the second will ensure that we offer a broader range of devices for people who have sight issues, or who are blind, when they rightly go to cast their votes at the ballot box in future elections. As a result, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ASSISTANCE WITH VOTING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2022
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Assistance with Voting for Persons with Disabilities (Amendments) Regulations 2022.—(Lee Rowley.)