Draft Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Gray. Before I speak to the regulations, I will briefly touch on how our whistleblowing framework works. As a former vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am keen to ensure that we get this legislation in the right place.
The Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA—enables workers in all sectors to seek redress if they are dismissed or suffer detriment at the hands of their employer because they have blown the whistle. Workers who believe that they have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally treated for making a protected disclosure can complain to an employment tribunal. To be covered by these rights, a worker who makes a disclosure must reasonably believe that they are acting in the public interest and that the disclosure tends to show past, present or likely future wrongdoing. A worker must also generally make their disclosure either to their employer, legal adviser or the relevant prescribed person.
There are over 80 prescribed persons across numerous sectors, including bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, the Financial Conduct Authority and the General Medical Council. Prescribed persons have been given this legal status because of their ability to take action in respect of a disclosure made to them. Many have extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and, in some cases, regulatory oversight of the sector. Over 50,000 whistleblowing disclosures were made to prescribed persons in the 2020-21 financial year, which underlines just how important prescribed persons are in our whistleblowing framework. They are an invaluable route for whistleblowers to provide vital information to appropriate bodies, enabling them to prevent and act on wrongdoing that harms both our economy and wider society.
The changes in these regulations are necessary as a result of changes made in another statutory instrument, the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2022. I am pleased to say that that instrument makes a number of significant additions to the list of prescribed persons: the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Office for Environmental Protection, Environmental Standards Scotland, Social Work England, all 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and Natural Resources Wales. The SI also removes the European Securities and Markets Authority as a prescribed person, reflecting the fact that, since we exited the EU, the relevant regulatory responsibilities have been assigned to the Financial Conduct Authority. Consequently, disclosures that could previously be made to the ESMA will now be made to the FCA.
The overall effect of the SI is that more workers will be able to blow the whistle to a relevant prescribed person. This not only ensures that the worker making the disclosure is more likely to qualify for employment protection, but means that those regulators and public bodies will benefit from receiving valuable intelligence.
The draft regulations deal with the annual reporting requirement that applies to most prescribed persons. The requirement was introduced in 2017. It requires most prescribed persons to publish an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them by workers. It introduces greater transparency on the work of prescribed persons to increase confidence among whistleblowers that their disclosures are taken seriously and action is taken where appropriate. The requirement also supports greater consistency across different bodies in the way they respond to disclosures.
A small set of prescribed persons are exempt from the reporting requirement, including Members of the House of Commons and Welsh and Scottish Ministers. These prescribed persons are exempt as they do not have a regulatory function; instead, they are prescribed due to their distinctive and key role in aiding constituents on whistleblowing matters and supporting them to make a disclosure to a relevant regulatory body. As a constituency MP I always want to hear about the issues impacting my constituents, and know how important we can be in championing the causes of whistleblowers.
The draft regulations amend the list of prescribed persons who are exempt from the reporting duty in two ways. First, as Members of the Scottish Parliament are being added as prescribed persons, the regulations add them to the list of prescribed persons exempt from the reporting requirement. That will ensure that MSPs will be able to fulfil their role in a proportionate manner and will be prescribed on the same terms as Members of the House of Commons. Secondly, the regulations remove the ESMA as a prescribed person exempt from the reporting requirement. This is necessary because, as I explained, the ESMA is being removed as a prescribed person.
In conclusion, the Government greatly value the role of whistleblowers in bringing wrongdoing to light. The effect of the draft regulations will be to bring the list of prescribed persons exempt from the reporting requirement up to date, and I commend them to the House.
Bill Esterson
That is a disgrace—questions should be asked in the House. Anyway, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair.
The draft regulations have complete support on both sides of the House, as the Minister will know from the brief debate in the Lords. He set out extremely well the importance of whistleblowers having the confidence to report on issues in the workplace. Today, we are agreeing—I am pre-empting the Committee’s decision—to give MSPs the same exemption from reporting requirements that we enjoy as Westminster MPs and that is already enjoyed by Scottish and Welsh Ministers. The Minister put it very well: this is a proportionate way of enabling MSPs, alongside Westminster MPs, to act as prescribed persons and recognising our distinctive role as elected representatives, which means that we might be approached by constituents who need to whistleblow. I am happy to support these minor amendments and I hope that they will help workers to whistleblow when they need to.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I have a simple question for the Minister. MPs were put into the same category as prescribed persons, but I suspect that a straw poll of colleagues would show that many do not understand that. Crucially, staff would find it hard to recognise a true whistleblower. Like the Minister, we in the Public Accounts Committee have done some work on the subject and we know the importance of having a proper pathway when someone has shown the courage to whistleblow. As MPs, like MSPs, we also get other types of complaint that would not reach the threshold of whistleblowing. Has he had any conversations about how to support Members of the Scottish Parliament as well as others in the category who might need stronger guidance? It is all very well passing the law, but unless it works in practice it will all be for nothing. I hope that the Minister can give us some information on how he is spreading the word and making sure that there is proper training.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful for the Committee’s support and I thank all hon. Members for their consideration. I really appreciate the shadow Minister’s support.
The point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about Members of Parliament’s responsibility is a very good one. I have had a number of whistleblower disclosures—protected disclosures—sent to me personally, and I was a little confused myself about what I should do with them. For the benefit of the Committee, Members of Parliament are expected to liaise with the relevant regulator. That is what they are expected to do, rather than deal with the issue ourselves. There are people with expertise in particular matters—for example, if a case involves financial matters, the Financial Conduct Authority is the relevant body.
We need to address a wider issue with whistleblower reform. As a former vice-chair of the all-party group I have some ideas about the change I would like to see, which might well encompass better advice for MPs and MSPs. I am keen to undertake that review as quickly as possible and am working with officials to do it. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.
The underlying key to the regulations is that we are looking to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business. To do that, we need a partnership between business people and the labour market, and we need a strong and flexible labour market that supports participation, income and growth. In my view, whistleblowing is key to that and to ensuring that the framework for employment is fit and proper and fit for purpose. That benefits both workers and businesses.
We know the important work that whistleblowers do in rooting out wrongdoing. I believe that the draft regulations will give workers the confidence they need to raise concerns about wrongdoing and to ensure that the information goes to the relevant bodies. That is key to this. Those bodies have the powers to act on the wrongdoing that can harm both our economy and wider society. In line with that, we need Members of Parliament to properly understand the rules, as the hon. Lady set out, and to fulfil their role in a proportionate manner. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to implement into UK law important amendments to the 1978 international convention on the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, to make further provision for the approval of training providers, including powers to remove that approval, and to make provision to allow the Government to charge for those approvals.
The STCW amendments came into force internationally on 1 January 2017 and 1 July 2018, and the draft regulations were laid before this House on 31 October 2022. They revoke and replace the current regulations implementing the convention—that is, the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2015—thereby restating existing regulatory provisions in this area and also making new provision.
The draft regulations will be made under the safety powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, as well as the prevention of pollution powers contained in the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order 1996. The draft regulations also make amendments to the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 2018. This enables fees to be charged for the approval of training providers. The draft regulations are subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedures under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as they revoke the 2015 STCW regulations, which were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The draft regulations do not implement any EU obligations.
Before continuing, I should like to provide some background to the convention and outline the Government’s reasons for wanting to implement the amendments to it. The International Maritime Organisation adapted the STCW convention in 1978 and it came into force in 1984. The IMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations and is based here in London—I had the pleasure of addressing a large portion of its membership last week—and it is responsible for facilitating the development of international rules of for shipping. The convention of the STCW code, which is an integral part of the convention, set the standards of competence for seafarers internationally. Human error is recognised as the cause of a large percentage of maritime casualties and pollution incidents, and the convention aims to help tackle that problem by setting out minimum standards of knowledge, experience and professional competence for seafarers.
The UK is a member of and home to the IMO and a signatory to the convention, to which there are a further 164 parties, estimated to represent more than 99% of global shipping. Being a party to the convention allows the UK to issue internationally recognised seafarer qualifications, thereby enabling UK seafarers to work on ships that operate internationally. Since its entry into force in 1984, there have been a number of revisions to the convention. The latest amendments came into force on 1 January 2017 and 1 July 2018. As a party to the convention, the UK is required to implement the amendments into UK law.
The STCW convention amendments being implemented in the draft regulations relate to seafarer training for those serving on ships under the international code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels—known as the IGF code—and those on passenger ships. These specialised ships require additional training and certification to demonstrate competency appropriate to the responsibility of a seafarer on board the vessel. This will allow United Kingdom seafarers to take up employment on these particular ships.
The improved regulations will enhance the employment opportunities for UK seafarers by ensuring a modern training and certification structure that reflects the current and future needs of shipping. This includes by clarifying the definition of “seafarer” to ensure that all persons, including non-employed crew, who are engaged in the operation or navigation of a pleasure vessel of 24 metres or more in length, or of 80 gross tonnage or more, are subject to the regulations; clarifying the position of the Secretary of State in relation to the approval of training providers, as well as the right to suspend or cancel the approval; introducing a charge for the approval of training providers to ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can approve and monitor training providers that deliver the training required by the STCW convention, in line with the principle of public authorities recovering moneys spent on services that would otherwise fall on the taxpayer; and providing powers to approve equivalents and alternative certification, as permitted by the STCW convention.
The enhancement of safety through the improvement of the regulatory regime for seafarers’ training will complement the Department for Transport’s nine-point plan to support seafarers and introduce new powers to protect maritime workers. The draft regulations are further required to allow the UK to grow its high-quality seafarer training brand worldwide, while supporting the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy to support quality training initiatives that raise the standards for seafarers across the globe and that are beneficial to the United Kingdom.
The Government fully supported the development of the STCW convention amendments in the IMO, and the UK shipping industry was consulted throughout their development to ensure that they are modern and fit for purpose. The Government’s proposals for implementing the convention amendments and additional regulatory provision by way of this statutory instrument were subject to an eight-week public consultation. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency refined the proposals based on the comments received, but no substantive changes were required.
I have highlighted the importance of the draft regulations so that we can implement the important amendments to the STCW convention for seafarers to ensure continued compliance with the convention and to improve the regulatory regime by raising standards of training and education. Ensuring a pipeline of highly trained seafarers to meet the demands of the UK’s maritime industry is a vital part of our nation’s economic and strategic needs. I trust that I have cross-party support for the draft regulations, which allow the United Kingdom to play its part in leading the world in seafarer training and education. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the House.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As ever, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as it was to talk before the start of the Committee about all things relating to the mariners and Grimsby Town. I thank the Minister for his explanation—that quick Wikipedia tour of the history of the International Maritime Organisation—in which, without blushing, he did not mention P&O once. We do need to train up some British seafarers, but I shall come to that later in my speech.
We support the statutory instrument. The implementation of the amendments to the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping regulations will ensure that seafarers on specialised ships can undertake the required additional training and be issued with the necessary certification to demonstrate the appropriate level of competency. This will allow United Kingdom seafarers to take up employment on specialised ships. Furthermore, implementation will also ensure that training providers approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State can train and certify United Kingdom seafarers and those outside the United Kingdom as well.
The maritime sector is responsible for transporting 90% of global trade and supplying the world with food, fuel, medicines and goods. The training and development of the world’s 1.9 million seafarers is key for shipping as we move away from conventional fuels and transition towards alternative low and zero-carbon fuels and technologies. I was pleased to see the announcement earlier this month at COP27 regarding the green shipping corridor between the US and Norway and the Netherlands.
We know the value of highly skilled seafarers. Earlier this year, P&O Ferries sacked 800 staff without notice. We all remember the ships stranded with agency staff on board—agency staff who were, in many cases, unskilled and inexperienced. One such incident involved the European Causeway, a passenger ferry that can carry up to 410 passengers. When it suffered a total power failure 5 miles off Larne in County Antrim, three lifeboats were scrambled to its aid, along with a tugboat. Two and a half hours later it was escorted to port; it was only the good weather in the Irish sea that averted a serious incident.
Before entering service, all ships previously staffed by skilled P&O seafarers were required to undergo a full safety inspection before being operated by the new agency crew. The European Causeway failed its first inspection with 31 separate safety deficiencies, including life-saving appliances found to be “not as required” and incomplete emergency systems.
It is unconscionable that anybody with responsibility for safety at sea is not trained. Regulation 27 is headed:
“Safety familiarisation, basic training and instruction for all seafarers”.
Who is responsible for bearing the costs of the outlined seafarer training? The cost of some such courses runs into thousands of pounds. Some seafarers are paid just £5.50 an hour. It is no good having a nine-point plan if nobody acts on what is happening on our sea highways. There are responsible employers who want highly skilled and trained seafarers, but that is not the norm and there is no mandatory requirement or scope within the statutory instrument to make it incumbent on them. Surely training seafarers in safety is in everyone’s best interests. If Members will pardon the pun, we do not want to miss the boat on this. We must be as committed to a just transition as we are to decarbonisation and the move to green fuels in the industry.
I note that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has commissioned further research into the use of onshore simulators to train officer cadets. That also applies to ratings, as they too have watch duties. Will the Minister apprise me of the research into onshore training being equivalent to sea-time training? I know that it has attracted significant opposition from some within the industry, and in principle we support the proposal of trialling it and assessing the results to determine whether it should be made permanent. Some idea of timescales for that research would be helpful.
In the explanatory memorandum, I notice that the estimated cost of the impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies is £1.6 million. Is there a breakdown of how that is split and how charities, voluntary bodies and small businesses might afford it? The Opposition support any steps taken to improve the conditions and safety of seafarers. We would like Government to go further and commit to improving pay and conditions for seafarers across the board. We have made the case, time and again, for a just transition. Without a just transition, many workers will lose their livelihoods. In the case of maritime, many have spent a significant proportion of their life employed at sea and will not have the ability to work in the evolving professions. We will not oppose the statutory instrument, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for his comments. It was a bit of a whistle-stop tour of some of the highlights of the IMO. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not include my fabulous speech to many of the countries that were there last week. We touched on many of the points that he talked about, particularly how we, alongside France and Costa Rica, are leading the way in decarbonisation and green highways across our seas. I hope that we can build that international coalition to ensure that it becomes the norm over the next few years.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about research into onshore training. It has been well used in things such as aviation simulation for the training of pilots, and I will happily write to him with specific information on the training of seafarers. Obviously, it be paid for by the sector and the businesses involved, but funding is available—up to 50% of the cost—for those training ratings and cadets. On the broader issues around P&O, he will know that we await the Second Reading in this House of the Seafarers’ Wages Bill. I look forward to speaking to him on Second Reading in the not too distant future. I hope that I have answered his points as fully as I can. If I have missed anything out, I urge him to write to me.
It is important that we implement the amendments to the convention into UK law, and make important improvements to the regime for the training of seafarers. That is necessary and desirable, especially given the responsibility that seafarers have for the safety of themselves and others and the protection of the marine environment, and the Government’s commitment to leading internationally on the safety and decarbonisation of the seas. It is right to implement the draft regulations as soon as is practical.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I declare my farming interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As agricultural tenancy matters are devolved, I speak for England only, but I want to highlight that we worked closely with the Welsh Government on this instrument, and the same composite instrument was debated and approved by the Senedd on 22 November. I therefore trust that my Opposition colleagues will follow their Welsh colleagues and approve the regulations.
Many tenants and landlords work collaboratively and progressively to resolve issues that may arise during their tenancy agreement, but sometimes that is not possible. In that case, our agricultural tenancy legislation enables either party to the tenancy agreement to apply for a professional authority to appoint an independent arbitrator to help to resolve any disputes. The legislation also enables the professional authorities to charge a small statutory fee to cover the administration costs of delivering an arbitration appointment service. The current statutory fee was last set in 1996, at £115. Because of inflation, that sum no longer covers the costs incurred by the professional authorities in delivering that arbitration service, so the purpose of this instrument is to update the statutory fee on a cost recovery basis, to £195. That is in line with His Majesty’s Treasury guidance on managing public money. The increase was supported by 73% of the respondents to the Government’s consultation on the issue.
The instrument also updates the regulations in line with changes made in the Agriculture Act 2020 to include a wider list of professional authorities that can now offer an arbitration appointment service. The list now includes the president of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the chair of the Agricultural Law Association and the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Tenants and landlords have more choice between different service providers, which will help to drive continuous improvement and the provision of an efficient and quality service. In addition, the instrument includes a new duty to review the regulations every five years. Reviews will be carried out in consultation with the industry to check that the level of statutory fee is appropriate and in line with the cost-recovery principles.
I am aware that the recently published report on tenant farming—the product of a review led by Baroness Rock—includes recommendations on the operation and oversight of dispute resolution. I put on record our thanks to Baroness Rock and members of the working party for their work in producing the report. I welcome the report and the focus on supporting a vibrant tenancy sector. The Government are considering recommendations, and I will be meeting Baroness Rock to discuss the report soon. The Government will publish a formal response in due course.
I hope that I have assured you, Mr Twigg, and members of the Committee, of the need for this instrument. It will ensure that tenant farmers and landlords continue to have access to the appointment of an independent arbitrator when they need it, funded by an appropriate statutory fee set on a cost recovery basis.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
The instrument looks like an innocuous proposal, but I am afraid there is rather more to it than meets the eye, which is often the case when it comes to tenancy issues. The Minister has already referenced the Rock review. Baroness Rock produced her excellent report some weeks ago, and despite plenty of prompting from me and others, we have not yet had a full response from the Government. I understand that “in due course” can mean many things in this place, but I encourage the Minister to speed up that response. It is an important report and people are waiting on the Government to respond. That is relevant to this statutory instrument because the whole question of the arbitrator, whose fee is raised by this SI, is central to the debate, and, indeed, the Rock review is referenced in the explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 10.4.
I am, as so often, indebted to George Dunn of the Tenant Farmers Association for his advice on this matter. He tells me that the TFA is objecting to the proposals. He cites the recommendations of the Rock review, which expresses concern about the way in which agents operate in general, and how arbitration is in need of some oversight and reform. The report highlights the need for a commissioner or ombudsman to oversee the operation of arbitration. The TFA’s view is that that needs to be implemented preferably before or alongside any decision to increase the appointment fee. He says that the increase in the fee would land much better with his members if they had some sort of indication or assurance that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take seriously the recommendations set out in the Rock review on the appointment of a commissioner or ombudsman whose role is to look at the operation of arbitration.
George Dunn also tells me that most of the costs associated with accreditation, assessment, training and continuing professional development of arbitrators fall to the arbitrators themselves. As a result, the cost of using arbitrators already reflects those increasing costs, as they pass on the costs to the parties involved in the process. It is unclear what costs the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and others incur in the appointment process. None of that is on the record.
George Dunn argues that RICS should see the process of appointing arbitrators as part of its public interest work under its royal charter rather than as part of its commercial activities, particularly in the light of the recent conclusions of the Bichard review into the royal charter. Recommendation 3 of that review said that there must be a separation between the RICS portfolio of commercial activities, which the TFA would argue the appointment of arbitrators does not fall within, and its wider activities. I have not had the chance to pursue that with RICS, which may take a different view, but there is sufficient uncertainty to make me question whether it would not be more sensible to make the changes as part of a broader response to the Rock review. Indeed, having that discussion might accelerate any response from the Government. On that basis, we will not support the SI today and will divide the Committee.
Mark Spencer
I am disappointed by the Opposition spokesman’s comments. It appears fairly obvious to me that in Wales, where the Labour party is in charge and has the responsibility to sort the matter out, it is happy to go along with the increase, but here, where we are in charge, it somehow finds a political opposition to the increase. That is pretty disappointing.
There are two separate issues. One is the arrangements for the management of the arbitration service; the other is the cost. Today we are just sorting out the cost of the arbitration service, and £200 does not seem like a large sum for that service to be delivered. These occasions are quite rare, and in order to resolve challenges between tenants and landlords a fee has to be applicable. I think that £200 is an appropriate amount of money, particularly if we are talking about blocks of land where rents may be in excess of £150 an acre. We are talking about a fee equivalent to 1.5 acres on a block of land.
The hon. Member mentioned the Rock review. Of course, we will respond as soon as we can. I would gently say to him that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. He can have a response as quickly as he wants, but we want to get it right and consider it properly. There were 80-plus recommendations in that report. It deserves the Government to look at it properly, and consider how many they can adopt. I am keen to take onboard as many recommendations as possible. A lot of work went into the report, and it deserves due consideration. That is what it will get. I hope that the hon. Member will reconsider and support the motion, as his colleagues did in Wales.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, but the increase in the rate has been waited on for eight, nine or 10 years.
The Chair
Order. Sorry, Mr Zeichner, but you cannot make another speech. You can intervene if you have a question for the Minister.
Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022
Draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and Welsh Forms (Amendment) Order 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
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 Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 and the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and Welsh Forms (Amendment) Order 2022.
Lee Rowley
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
The three draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 1 and 3 November. If approved and made, they will amend the forms, ballot papers and processes prescribed in existing legislation to take account of a change made by the Elections Act 2022. The Act brought in first-past-the-post voting for the elections of Mayors and police and crime commissioners, replacing the supplementary vote system that is currently used. The merits of individual voting systems have been debated at length in connection with the Elections Act, and Parliament has made a determination. Our activity in Committee today is to ensure that the regulations under the Act reflect what is in it.
Turning to the specificities before us, the draft statutory instruments will ensure that forms, ballot papers, provisions for counting votes, and other prescribed procedures are updated to reflect the fact that mayoral and PCC elections will in future be on a first-past-the-post basis. The provision in the Elections Act 2022 making that change is now in force, and the change will first apply to any mayoral or PCC elections or by-elections held on or after the ordinary election day in May 2023—in practical terms, that is 4 May 2023, being the first Thursday in that month.
Without the draft statutory instruments being approved and made, election officers would not be able effectively to deliver elections for local authority and combined authority Mayors and for police and crime commissioners held on or after the date I just mentioned. An instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure, making similar changes to elections for the Mayor of London, was made on 26 October and laid before Parliament on 31 October. As with the instruments before us, that instrument will apply first to any election or by-election held on or after 4 May 2023.
In drafting the instruments, the Department and the Home Office consulted the Electoral Commission on the text. We are grateful to it for its technical comments, which we have taken into account.
I will not delay the Committee any further. The draft instruments before us are essential to ensure that council officers can properly implement the move to first past the post for Mayors and PCCs. That change, which Parliament has already approved, will mean easier voting for those posts, with more straightforward counting of votes, and clearer and quicker results. I commend the draft orders and regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray.
As we have heard, the three draft measures before us relate to changing the voting system for combined authority Mayors, local authority Mayors, and police and crime commissioners to a first-past-the-post system—what a way to spend a Wednesday afternoon!
Not that long ago, the Government used to say that they were focused on the people’s priorities.
Alex Norris
The Government Whip perhaps gets ahead of himself. I wonder how long we would have to stand in Parliament Square before we met a person who thought that addressing the issue before us was even in their top 50 priorities—a long time indeed, I suspect.
As we heard from the Minister, the draft instruments flow from the Elections Act, which the Opposition strongly opposed at all stages before it became law a few months ago, and we do so again today—it was bad law then, and it is bad law now. Indeed, the Act is the latest in a long line that have exhibited the very worst tendencies of this Government in recent years, including the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022—remember that one?—the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and the Trade Union Act 2016.
Underlying all those Acts was a determination to strengthen the Executive at the expense of the legislature and by shrinking the civic space for those who oppose this Government, including through an often complete disregard for the views of those affected as the Government ran through their proposals. That was mirrored in the proceedings on the Elections Act, which had these measures shoved into it halfway through Committee stage and after Second Reading; indeed, Bill Committee members could not even ask witnesses for their opinions about them, because that moment had passed. That is not the way to make good legislation, and these provisions are not good ones. I hope the Minister will reiterate in closing that the Government will make good on the commitments made during the passage of the Act to provide proper post-legislative scrutiny, because the Act needs it.
The measures before us once again seek to solve a problem that we have not yet been able to identify. I cannot think of a point where strong concerns have been raised about the conduct of supplementary vote elections—that they were perhaps too confusing or that the outcome did not reflect the public will—and where there was therefore a compelling case for change. I cannot think of Mayors or mayoral candidates who have raised significant concerns, and we did not hear that from the Minister in his opening speech. For all the noise on the Government Benches, it was a Conservative Government that introduced police and crime commissioners and this system of voting for them. Metro Mayors were introduced under the Government using this system, so it was good enough for them previously. The system has worked; the case for change is weak, and it is a terrible idea.
Putting aside the partisan aspects of this, it is a terrible idea to set the precedent that we in this place can change electoral systems without talking to the general public. I ask colleagues on the Government Benches to think where that could lead. If they are resistant to electoral reform—and I think many of those facing me probably are—they should consider that the approach being taken today is completely out of line with how we would originally have done these things, and it opens a Pandora’s box. I am surprised the Minister is so keen to do so, and I hope he will reflect on that in his closing remarks.
I gently say to the Minister that there is an awful lot that his Department has not delivered: huge regional inequalities that its plans are too modest to address, a housing crisis that has been ignored while the Government have a roll-around with their Back Benchers, and local councils that have been withering away because of Government cuts. It is beyond belief that, with all that in the in-tray, the three nonsenses in front of us are the priorities. That prompts only one question: why are the Government doing this? Once again, it seems that they are doing nothing more than seeking political advantage and moving the goalposts to make life a little easier.
I understand why a preference-based system so discomfits the Government; they know that a huge portion of the British people, if given a second, third and fourth choice alongside their first choice of candidate, would not use any of them for the Conservative party of today. Perhaps it is better to remove that option, but this narrow pursuit of political interest is what political projects do when they are past their sell-by date, unable to tackle big problems and devoid of big ideas.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Can I just clarify whether it is now the Labour party’s position that first past the post is no longer the premier electoral system for UK elections?
Alex Norris
That is not the case that I have made. The case that we are making is that these systems have worked for these positions, and we do not believe that they ought to be changed. The irony is that, if we applied my Parliament Square test and asked people outside, “What are your priorities for your democracy?”, they would say that they would like a general election at the earliest opportunity—and we know why. I urge colleagues to vote against these instruments.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your leadership of the Committee, Mrs Murray. I rise briefly to raise a couple of points about the provisions.
These are quite ingenious ways of moving from one system of voting to another, and the details are extremely complicated to follow. However, there are helpful explanatory memorandums for each of the provisions, and I went to those to try to understand the details of the various measures that are being changed. I was particularly interested in the consultation process, which does not seem to have taken place. The explanatory memorandum to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022 says that there is a statutory duty to consult under paragraph 12(4) of schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. What did the Government do? They consulted the Electoral Commission—full stop. They did no further consultation at all, and we can identify fairly easily from the explanatory memorandum why they did not. Another reason, of course, is the politics of all this, which are always interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North exposed some of that.
Some of the arguments developed in the explanatory memorandum are difficult for the Government to sustain. I want to probe why, in paragraph 10.3, whoever it was who wrote the explanatory memorandum on behalf of the Government says, “Well, we had a referendum, and people decided they did not want a change from first past the post.” However, the referendum was about the alternative vote—a different kind of proportional representation from SV, which is in place for the mayoralties. Why are we applying the lessons of a referendum about one system of voting to a completely different system of voting and saying that people have expressed a view? They have not expressed a view on SV, because they were never asked.
The truth is that, as the explanatory memorandum says, no consultation took place with the public at all. The Government decided not to bother. The Conservative party used to be the party that would protect and conserve the constitution. What the Conservatives are doing here is playing around with the constitution in a number of ways. I will come to my second point in a moment, but first I ask the Minister why that paragraph is praying in aid a referendum about one voting system to argue that we do not need to consult on a completely different voting system.
My second point—I know that you will listen to me carefully, Mrs Murray, and tell me if I am out of order—is that moving from the system we have is that probably no Mayor in the country will ever be elected with more than 50% of the vote. If we look at the 2019 North of Tyne mayoral election—I will develop the point in a second to show why it is relevant to today’s proceedings—Jamie Driscoll, who is an excellent Labour Mayor, was elected on a 32% turnout. However, in the first round he received only 33% of the vote, which means that only 10% of the electorate voted for him. One would imagine that that is what will happen under first past the post: a person with executive duties, making decisions about the nature of a region, will have been elected by only one in 10 voters.
Jon Trickett
Let me just make the second point, and then the hon. Gentleman can come in.
I am not looking only at Labour Mayors; Andy Street in the West Midlands received 48% of the vote on a 31% turnout, but the truth is that, of the total number of people who might have voted, only 15% voted for him—[Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Bolsover been told by his Whip not to intervene on me?
Mark Fletcher
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for not thanking the hon. Member for Nottingham North for giving way earlier. I am slightly curious about how the hon. Member for Hemsworth feels Members of Parliament hold up when it comes to their electoral share, given that we are elected by first past the post. I am also delighted to point out—this was the point the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, was just making—that Ben Houchen did all right.
Jon Trickett
I will come to precisely that point. I was the leader of a great council—Leeds City Council—for almost 10 years under Mrs Thatcher and then under John Major’s premiership. I was elected under first past the post, but we had a parliamentary system, as we do here. The Prime Minister is not elected by the people; he or she is elected by parliamentarians, and it was the same with the council. I was elected as leader of the council by the councillors, who had been elected by the public. What we have here is a presidential mode of running local regions and councils, in the sense that we have directly elected Mayors—who are not really accountable to a council or a group of councillors and who are able to make executive decisions of some significance, often spending large amounts of money—elected by only 10% of the population. That is quite an issue, and it needed to be properly debated with the public.
We are back to the failure to consult the public. Why on earth did we not consult the public? Why on earth have we allowed a situation in which only one in 10 voters might vote for an elected Mayor, who will have executive decision-making powers of a kind that the Prime Minister does not have? Certainly, under the normal system of council governance, a council leader would not have those powers. That is quite a mistake.
In paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum, under the heading “Impact”, we find out that we can save money by moving from one system to another, but are we really going to put a price on democracy? The memorandum says that we will save £7.3 million by moving from one system to another. That cannot be a justifiable reason for changing the way we do things without consulting anybody in the country. I have major reservations about this. I remain to be convinced of the case for moving away from first past the post in parliamentary elections. Once we establish a system for setting up and electing what are effectively neo-presidential authorities, having tinkered with the British constitution, we should not change that system without at least speaking to the public. If we spoke to them, perhaps we would end up with more engagement.
My final point is not at all in the documents before us—you will probably rule me out of order, Mrs Murray. If the Government stopped this system of Mayors who simply operate with delegated powers and administrate decisions made by central Government, and if those Mayors were given real powers, we might get more engagement with the public and might not have to tinker with the electoral system.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Hemsworth for their contributions, both of which went slightly broader than the statutory instruments we are debating, although I am happy to try to respond to some of the points raised.
Let me first take the questions from the hon. Member for Hemsworth. He makes much of paragraph 10.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2022, but that should be taken with the totality of paragraphs 10.1 and 10.2, which 2 explains clearly why the Government took the approach they did to consultation.
On the hon. Gentleman’s broader points, what he said about Mayors not obtaining 50% of the vote is clearly not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover indicated that it does not apply in the case of the Tees Valley mayoralty or of Labour individuals who have been successful in mayoral elections, including the former Member for Leigh in the Greater Manchester mayoral election of 2021.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about people making decisions having been elected by one in 10 voters, but under what I take from his comments to be the alternative, Mayors could still be elected by one in 10 voters; it is just that the person who came second could come first. None of today’s discussion is relevant to his broader concerns, which are legitimate, about the number of people taking part in our democratic systems and how we increase that number.
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that one way to increase the numbers taking part would be to not slightly misrepresent what is in the explanatory memorandum. He has been in this place long enough—far longer than I have—to know that there is a requirement on the Government to understand the impact of changes; that is good government. It is appropriate that the Committee members here to debate these measures should understand their impact. The £7.3 million figure is a genuine attempt by the Government to set out their operational and financial impact—it happens to be positive, in this instance—over time. That is down to counts taking less time, and not needing to go to a second round in a number of instances. I hope those answers were helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North is obviously setting out a broader prospectus with his discussion points today. He talks about applying the litmus test of going out and asking the average person what their top priorities are. I gently say to him that I think most Labour Members do not, week by week, talk in this place about what is important to people out there. I am very happy to test that in places such as North East Derbyshire in the months and years ahead.
We have committed to providing post-legislative scrutiny, and will continue to do that. There is a fundamental point on which we obviously have a difference of view: we said clearly in our manifesto in 2019 that we support first past the post. That debate was had in proceedings on the Elections Act 2022, and has been closed. Today it is important to ensure that the provisions behind elections legislation align, so that we can hold the kind of elections that we want—elections that are well run and well organised. For those reasons, I strongly encourage Committee members to support today’s instruments, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.