Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

51: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Levelling-up consultantsWithin 120 days of this Act being passed, a Minister of the Crown must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to this Part.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that a Minister must publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be moving these amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The first amendment is Amendment 51, which is after Clause 5. It asks for the Minister to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to the first six clauses of the Bill. The reason for laying this amendment is that there has been quite a lot of discussion over the last few years about the amount of money being spent both by local and national government on consultants. We wanted to probe the Government on this and have a small discussion around this area.

Back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee released a report which said that the Government were

“too quick to spend money on consultants to undertake work that could actually be better done by existing civil servants”

and that this was being done rather than developing and retaining in-house skills. Since then, any restriction on spending controls on consultants have been ditched by the Government, allowing Whitehall departments to potentially spend millions more on these external consultants. The limits were introduced under a previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, in 2011, requiring central authorisation if contracts lasted more than nine months or exceeded £20,000. Our concern is that the value of contracts has been rising. The limit set earlier this year was £600,000, which is a huge jump. We are very concerned about this, because government spending is being tightened in other areas of public expenditure, particularly during the cost of living crisis. If the Government are increasing this extra cost of outside consultants, how can that be justified in the current crisis? However, obviously, one thing we appreciate is that during the pandemic there was additional spending in this area that could not be avoided.

In 2022, the UK public sector awarded £2.8 billion-worth of consulting contracts, according to data from the contract analyst Tussell Ltd which was published in the Financial Times. That figure was up by 75% from 2019, so even taking into consideration rising costs during the pandemic, that is still a huge jump in spending. Does the Minister agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the Government’s way forward on this should be to retain civil servants and develop their skills, and that that is a better use of government money?

I turn to the nub of the amendment, which is the published estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Clauses 1 to 6. Last week in Committee, we discussed the thorny issue of competitive funding. Our concern is that this is not the best way to fund different local authorities in their bids for levelling-up pots of money. We know that local authorities have complained about the Government’s proliferation of these competitive funding pots. Alongside this, local authorities obviously have been using more consultants. It has recently been reported that consultancy firms have raked in around £26 million from councils which are clearly cash strapped. They have lost funding from central government over the last few years, so they really do not have this money to spend. The reason they are spending it is that they are trying to prepare high-quality levelling-up funding bids, and they no longer retain much of the necessary skill set for that in house.

Considering that many of those with successful bids have lost far more in local authority funding cuts than they are going to achieve, does the Minister agree with me that the only people who seem to be turning a profit here are the consultants? We believe that the Government should change the way the funding is assessed and granted. I would be grateful if the Minister, and the wider Government, could think about how we can return skills in house—both in national government and local authorities—to stop this huge amount of cash going on external consultants.

My noble friend’s Amendment 52 relates to the practicalities of implementing a levelling-up agenda. It proposes that a Minister must publish a statement of any levelling-up directors who have been appointed and their role in implementing the levelling-up missions. We have heard for some time from the Government about the levelling-up directors and their intended appointment, but we have had very little detail or further information.

Last year, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton tabled a series of Questions about the government appointment of regional levelling-up directors, asking what their remuneration, role and responsibilities would be. The creation of these posts was announced not long after the White Paper was published last spring. At that stage, it was said that they were to be paid £140,000 a year. Last December, my noble friend was told in response to his Question that at that stage, none had been appointed and that further details on what they might actually do were still being worked out. Put simply, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in response to his Question:

“Further announcements will be made in due course.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments is related to consultants and the Government’s appointment of levelling-up directors. Specifically, Amendment 51, in the name of Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Government to publish an estimate of how much local authorities have spent on consultants in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. I fear that requiring local authorities to report in this way would be disproportionate and unnecessary, but let me explain why.

The new burdens doctrine, established and maintained by successive Governments, requires all Whitehall departments to justify why new duties, powers, targets and other bureaucratic burdens should be placed on local authorities, as well as how much these policies and initiatives will cost and where the money will come from to pay for them. This provision already ensures that the Government must properly consider the impact of their policies, legislation and programmes on local government and fully fund any new burdens arising.

Further, local authorities are already bound by the Local Government Transparency Code, which mandates local authorities to publish data on all expenditure over £500 in open and accessible formats. I will come back to that point in a second, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness about expenditure by central government on consultants.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify something? When he says that the Government fully fund any new burdens, does that mean that the Government are reimbursing local authorities for the cost of creating their bids?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, can he also clarify the geographical area for which he is responsible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree that it would be very helpful, because it is a bit confusing at the moment to know exactly what is what. I would appreciate that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his support of Amendment 51. On Amendment 52, I am not entirely sure that I agree with the appointment of directors. The point of the amendment is to get a better understanding of exactly what is happening, what the timescales are and what is expected of them, then to be able to make a proper assessment of exactly what we think about this policy of directors. It is quite difficult to have a proper position on it if you do not know what is going on and what sort of people are likely to be getting the jobs. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could write to us around any appointments that might be in the pipeline to give us a better understanding of how it is all working and what the timescales are.

While we are on Amendment 52, the Minister said that the recruitment process was being reviewed. When he writes, it would be good to understand what that means. Has there been any process so far? Are they liaising with the sector on how recruitment might best be done and on the timescales? I know that the Minister cannot give us any further information on that today, and he may not have a lot to put in his letter, but if he could give us as much as he possibly can, so we know where we are as we move forward through the scrutiny of the Bill, it would be extremely helpful.

On Amendment 51, again I thank the Minister for agreeing to write to me with more clarification around these matters. It is extremely helpful to have that. I am pleased that he agrees with us that developing skills in-house is important and that we must not have wasteful expenditure in departments. Again, the way forward is to stop it happening and to invest more in people. I thank him for his response, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The only other point I want to make is about the right for the Government in Clause 24 to dissolve a CCA, and again the importance there of local people being consulted and being able to influence the outcome of a decision. Given that, this is an important set of amendments and I look forward to the noble Earl’s response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments on my Amendment 126 before we hear the Minister’s response. I tabled this amendment because public consultation is something I feel very strongly about. I worked in consultation before I entered Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made some comments about standards of consultation, and it is incredibly important when we are talking about consultation that we know what we mean by that and that we are not just talking about stakeholder engagement, because they are very different things. I know that the Government do have minimum standards of consultation that they follow, so I wanted to make sure that that was properly on the record.

I want the results of the public consultation to be publicly available because consultation is not just about going out and talking to people. It is about listening to people and, having listened to them, it is about demonstrating the changes made in response to what the public have said during that consultation process. That is why, to me, this is critical. If you are to bring people on board with what you are trying to achieve, they need to genuinely believe that they have been part of the process in a constructive way. Even if you do not agree with them, it is important to explain why not and whether any further action has been taken.

Finally, I may have got this wrong, but I think the Minister said in his response to the previous debate that there were no further requirements around consultation because it is covered in Clause 46. I had a look at Clause 46 and it says:

“The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation unless”


and there are few examples. The final one is if

“the Secretary of State considers that no further consultation is necessary.”

Again, that would concern me unless it was clearly demonstrated and transparent why that was no longer required, because we have seen publicly what has been said and what further action has been taken or not taken and the reasons surrounding that. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that that is the approach the Government will be taking to consultation in this area.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

66: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Environmental Impact Assessment(1) The Secretary of State must publish an environmental impact assessment 120 days after laying regulations under section 7.(2) Each year thereafter, the CCA must publish an environmental impact assessment in relation to their ongoing operation.”Member's explanatory statement
This means that an environmental impact assessment must be published following the establishment of a CCA.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 66 I will speak also to a number of amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage.

Amendment 66 would require an environmental impact assessment to be published following the establishment of a CCA. We have heard in previous debates that the Bill will create a new model of combined authority through county deals, which will provide local leaders with powers to enhance local accountability, join up services and provide transparent decision-making to rejuvenate their communities. Although this is clearly an excellent ambition, previous debates have also demonstrated that there are many unknowns about how things are going to happen, particularly in a practical way, and what the impacts will be.

An environmental impact assessment would ensure that the likely environmental effects of any decisions are fully understood and then properly considered. An EIA would assess the direct and indirect impact based on a wide range of environmental factors—and it is a wide range, which is why an EIA must be considered and published. It could cover population and human health, biodiversity, land and soil, water, air, climate, landscape, material assets and cultural heritage. There is a lot here to be thought about. It is important, particularly given that we do not believe, as others have said in the previous debates around emissions, that the environment has been properly considered as one of the missions; it is not properly built upon throughout the Bill.

Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asks the Government to define and clarify the purpose of non-constituent members under Clauses 9 and 10, which relate to the appointment of the non-constituent and associate members of a CCA respectively. Our concern is that it is not clear whether there is to be any further guidance on whether certain types of non-constituent or associate members will be prescribed by the Secretary of State or recommended in further guidance, or whether it is entirely for the CCA to determine this class of membership according to what it believes local needs to be; for example, whether an ICS or a hospital trust is invited—because a major priority is to tackle health inequalities—or whether it is felt to be important locally that the local enterprise partnership be a non-constituent member to make a link with economic growth. Clarification on that from the Minister would be very helpful.

We have concerns that Clauses 9 and 10 appear to be qualified by Clause 11, which gives significant powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to non-constituent members. These include the number of non-constituent members; the appointment, disqualification and resignation, or even removal, of non-constituent members; the appointment of a substitute member to act in place of a constituent member; the maximum number of non-constituent members; and the things that may or may not be done by a non-constituent member. There are also equivalent Secretary of State powers relating to associate members. A circumstance could be imagined where, if the Secretary of State took such powers, the outcomes could end up being the exact opposite of the localism and devolution that the Bill purports to enshrine.

That is our big concern with these clauses, and why the amendment seeks clarification and further definition relating to the role of non-constituent and associate constituent members of the CCA. It is important to understand this properly. We do not want any part of the Bill to start pulling powers back centrally when the Government appear to want the exact opposite.

Amendment 76 in my name carries on from this. It would mean that a CCA could request that regulations are introduced in relation to it. Again, it is about the control that the CCA itself has when looking at regulations and at how it needs to operate and behave effectively for its local community, rather than everything being driven centrally by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 86, from my noble friend Lady Taylor, means that an annual statement must be published to show how much funding is given to each CCA. This should include a cost-benefit analysis. We have talked a lot about funding today and last week. It is a critical central part of achieving success from these clauses and the proposed devolution for England.

Clause 14 specifies the process by which the Secretary of State may draw up regulations for the funding and costs of a CCA to be met by its constituent councils, and how that amount payable will then be determined. While the clause specifies that this has to be done with the consent of constituent councils and the CCA, it does not tell us how any additional funding that may be provided by the Secretary of State, for example through the different competitive bidding pots that exist or any grants that may be given, will be included in the accountability process for the CCA. Clarification around that would be very helpful.

We also cannot ascertain from the clause how the overview and scrutiny committee—or the general public, for that matter—would be able to determine by cost-benefit analysis just how effective, with the funding being contributed to it, the CCA is at then delivering against its objectives for the area. We believe that our amendment provides a simple, straightforward way to provide that accountability through an annually published statement.

Amendment 100 in Clause 23, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor, would require the Secretary of State to explain how a local government area will, in future, have access to the powers that it has lost through removal from a CCA. My noble friend referred to this earlier. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers set out in Clause 23 to change the boundary of a CCA and remove a local government area from the existing area of the CCA, they can either transfer those functions to another public authority or remove a particular function of the CCA altogether for that area. While there is provision that the relevant councils must consent to this removal, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands that requires the Secretary of State to specify how any powers or functions will be delivered in future once that membership of the CCA has been terminated. So, again, it would be very helpful if the Minister were able to explain how that would move forward.

Clause 23(8) refers to consent being required from only the county council and not from any district councils that may be constituent members. My noble friend spoke earlier about the important role that district councils should play. They should not be seen just as a stakeholder, a secondary authority that does not have a say in such matters. This would mean that, in effect, an area could be removed from the CCA with the consent of only the county council but not of the constituent district councils that make up the area of the CCA being removed from its boundary. Surely they should have some kind of say in this. Is this what the Bill is intending or is this an oversight? If it is what the Bill is intended to do, would the consent vote required in Clause 23(9) specifically exclude the votes of district council members of the CCA? This is a really important area that we need to clarify.

Amendment 129, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance on the establishment and operation of CCAs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The current clause simply states that the Secretary of State,

“may give guidance about anything that could be done”

in relation to this chapter. Well, in view of the fundamental changes to the structure of local government that this chapter on CCAs is introducing, we believe that that is far too vague, and very likely to leave local government with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over it. In view of the fact that there have already been many iterations of the devolution agenda in recent years, we do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect that the Government will work with the sector in order to have, very quickly, clear and detailed guidance in relation to the establishment and the operation of CCAs as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That is why we have asked for this to happen within six months.

I turn finally to Amendment 130, which aims to probe whether the public will be informed of their CCA’s functions. With this amendment, we want to determine whether the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out the purpose and aims of the CCAs, and how they are to be established and operated; or whether that responsibility will fall to local government. If the latter is the case, will there be new burdens that will require funding in relation to the communications aspects of informing the public about the functions of a CCA? Will any such new burdens extend to any public consultation funding? This may well be required when an area decides to proceed with the establishment of a CCA. We discussed consultation a lot in the last group but one, and the Minister seemed to believe that there was going to be support for any new burdens—so, again, clarification on that would be very welcome. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to give very substantial support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has said. She has made several very powerful points. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those, because I am as concerned as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Taylor, are about some of these issues. Some of what I want to say I will cover in the next group, so I will try to avoid getting on to the issue of voting powers.

It really is very telling. Amendment 74, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, says:

“Within 30 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent, a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement including a definition of ‘non-constituent member’ and a description of their purpose”.


If I may be so bold, I think that is really late. I had expected that we would have this before Report. With the concept of an associate member and the concept of a non-constituent member, I really think that, before this Bill gets any further, we have to understand what the Government are thinking of with those definitions. We can all hazard a guess. I can hazard a guess. Some things have been said and occasionally written, but we have to do better than this.

On page 10 of the Bill, in Clause 11, the Secretary of State is going to make provision by regulations for a whole set of matters about membership. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, rightly identified, it is almost a whole side of the Bill which includes provisions on just about anything you could think of. I am at a loss to understand why these matters are not public at this stage in the consideration of a Bill.

Clause 11(4), “Regulations about members”, says:

“In this section ‘constituent member’, in relation to a CCA, means a member of the CCA (other than any mayor for the area of the CCA) appointed by a constituent council.”


I am sure that is correct, but that is the only definition we have. We have no definition of an associate member or a non-constituent member. Yet, as we will discover in the debate on the next set of amendments, the CCA will have discretion to give those people full votes. There is a big issue here, and I intend to take it further when we get to Report.

All I am trying to do is to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and say to the Government: here we have a number of very serious proposals that, as they stand, are unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that these explanations are helpful and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment 66.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot to think about there so perhaps the Committee would bear with me, as I have an awful lot more questions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his very strong support for these amendments, which is much appreciated. As he said, we are concerned about the lack of definition, for example. Much of this is unacceptable as it stands, because there are so many unknowns. It is really complicated and confusing, with not enough information out there, and we are really trying to pin the Government down on that as we move forward.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the environment is a bit of an orphan in the Bill. I thank her for her support for my amendment; she is absolutely right to say that we could be looking to have co-ordination and efficiency of scale on environmental matters. It concerns me that this is a real missed opportunity, particularly in areas of waste and transport, as the noble Baroness mentioned. The funding rounds so far have posed more questions than answers and there is not enough opportunity to make great strides in co-operation on environmental issues. These are things that we could do so much better; maybe if the missions focused more on the environment, there would be more thought around this. Obviously, this is something that we will come back to.

We need accountability to be built into these provisions. One thing to think about on the funding is that it is regressive in many areas—and in many that need levelling up more than others. It is not necessarily working at the moment, which is why we think it needs to be looked at.

Coming to the Minister’s comments, I am very pleased that he said we need more transparency and that it is important. However, on the environment, he talked about the fact the Secretary of State has a statutory test of improving environmental well-being. I am not convinced that that is the same thing as I am trying to achieve through the environmental impact assessment. I am trying to talk about working together more effectively on things such as waste, so you have cost benefits alongside improving the environment. There could be an opportunity for the Bill to do that—and it is not exactly the same as improving environmental well-being; they are slightly different. It would be good if the Government could go away and look at how that could perhaps be built into the legislation.

The Minister also mentioned that environmental impact assessments are there for certain pieces of work, but often they are the developers’ responsibility, if they are putting in for a particular development or for planning permission and so on. It is not built into encouraging councils to work together more environmentally effectively to bring that cost benefit to everybody.

On the non-constituent and associate members, from what the Minister said I gather that non-constituents are organisations and associate members are individuals. I am glad I have got that correct. However, to come back to district councils, they are already democratically elected. In theory, if 10 district councils were within a new CCA, could you end up with just one member being represented on the CCA? You could end up with very little district council representation compared with how many different councils there are. We need clear definitions and clear structures. There is nothing about how many members we are looking at and what their powers or responsibilities are. We are concerned that there is not enough pinned-down detail. Obviously, we like things to be in the Bill, but we could have more in the Explanatory Notes or under terms and conditions on how it is going to work once it is up and running.

I also want to point out that, in my experience—perhaps it is just to do with where I have been living—not all upper and lower authorities want to collaborate, and not all lower authorities want to collaborate. You can meet stalemate pretty quickly in those circumstances. I would be interested in how that is intended to be managed and who would manage it in order to smooth things over. How is that going to be helped if it is the CCA which decides who can and cannot vote? It strikes me that that has the potential for manipulation. It would be good to see conditions built in to ensure that does not happen. Would there be any guidance on this? What if, say, the only district council member is refused voting rights? Is there any right of appeal or challenge? How is that going to be managed?

On funding and regular reporting, the Minister mentioned the Local Government Act and how the government amendment is going to bring the CCAs into scope. That is really interesting to hear, and I imagine that we will probably revisit it once we have had a chance to look at that amendment and when it comes up for debate. I thank him for drawing our attention to that.

On access to powers if an authority has left the CCA, I clearly heard what the Minister said on Clause 23, but we added this because it does not actually explain that or lay out what happens. For example, if one local authority were delivering transport itself and were then removed, would that transport delivery go to the private sector, for example? That is completely different. We are trying to understand how that would operate and what the potential implications are if it is not managed properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness. Although some of her questions can be dealt with quite easily via a letter, it might be helpful to her and other noble Lords if we had a round-table session to explore some of the broader questions in greater depth. As she rightly said, considerable ramifications emerge from some of these questions, and I think they would be usefully dealt with in a conversational format, with officials present. So, if that idea appeals to noble Lords, I would be happy to arrange it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. We would very much welcome that; it would be extremely helpful. I will finish by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, a very happy birthday.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That is very kind.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

67: Clause 8, page 7, line 24, after second “the” insert “initial”
Member’s explanatory statement
The means that regulations can only relate to the initial constitutional arrangements.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to lose my voice at this rate. I will introduce my amendments in this group and briefly comment on those in the names of other noble Lords.

My Amendment 67 to Clause 8 means that regulations can relate only to the initial constitutional arrangements, and my Amendment 68 means that the regulations relating to the constitutional arrangements of a CCA can be made only after consultation with the CCA. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to establish constitutional arrangements, and we do not have a problem with that at all. These are defined as

“membership ... voting powers ... executive arrangements”

and

“functions of any executive body”.

The executive arrangements include government appointments, the functions by which the executive operates, the functions of the executive that might be delegated to the committee, the “review and scrutiny” of the executive, “access to information” about the executive and the disapplication of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989—plus the keeping of records. These are important aspects of establishing who will be on a CCA, where decisions will be made and what will and will not be in the public domain.

We believe that, once the Secretary of State sets up the bodies, they really ought to be allowed to get on with the job without undue interference. We believe that we should be able to trust them to exercise the significant power and money functions that will be devolved to them from the centre by this clause. So, if we trust them to do that, we should also trust them to be able to operate their own constitutional arrangements.

My Amendment 67 would insert the word “initial” to demonstrate that the Secretary of State may make provisions about the first set of constitutional arrangements only, and then the CCAs can carry on and do it themselves. Amendment 68 would further ensure that CCAs are consulted on any further regulations that would relate to their constitutional arrangements.

I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 to Clause 16, which would mean that the

“regulations can only be made with a majority of members of the constituent councils”.

If all the constituent councils are going to feel on a level footing, as it were, with the rest, it is important that they all have that say and that things can change only once there is a majority who actually wants to make that change. It is then more likely to be accepted and moved forward in a constructive manner.

I will comment on a few other amendments. The deletion of the paragraph that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has asked for in his Amendment 69

“would reduce the risk of single party control of the executive of a CCA or its committees”.

We strongly agree with the noble Lord on that. It is an important amendment, because the Secretary of State should not be able to make regulations which disapply the political proportionality rules for an executive or committee of a CCA; we believe that that is for the electorate to decide.

We also agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in his Amendment 71, which means that a constituent council can include

“a district council in a two-tier county council for an area within the CCA’s area or proposed area”.

We believe that this is one of a number of places in the Bill where district councils must be allowed to be included as constituent councils in two-tier areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has also tabled Amendments 72 and 75, which, again, reduce the risk of one-party dominance. I absolutely understand his point: if you allow voting members to resolve that non-constituent members can vote on a CCA, you could end up with the situation where this class of member is appointed specifically to boost the voting majority of one party. This comes back to us saying earlier that, if you are not careful, you could end up with a situation where things could be manipulated, even if that is not the Government’s intention. We have to be very careful about that, so we strongly support those amendments.

The amendment to Clause 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would require a referendum. I see that she is very keen on referendums today. I am not sure whether this is subject to prior legislation, but I am sure that she can enlighten me. The consultation to which we referred in our amendment in relation to setting up the CCA could carry a requirement that it also determines the nature of that CCA: for example, whether it is to be mayoral-led or indirectly elected, appointed by the CCA. In any case, it is probably good practice to consider a referendum on whether there should be a mayor and whether a CCA is indirectly elected. However, the one concern we have—I am sure that the Minister will refer to this—is the considerable cost of running any referendum; that is the sticking point for us.

Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, ensures that appointments cannot be imposed without scrutiny and without the CCA’s agreement. Again, this is around the appointment of a deputy mayor, in particular. If we assume the current system will continue as it is—that is, where deputy mayors are appointed—I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that this should not be without the scrutiny and agreement of the CCA. The question here is whether a powerful position such as that of deputy mayor should even be appointed in the first place, or whether we should undertake some kind of democratic process for these powerful positions.

Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to probe the circumstances in which political balance might be inappropriate. This is a very helpful amendment where the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is seeking to explore the nature of political balance in bodies that exercise joint functions. In effect, these have usually worked without political proportionality being applied, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on how this might operate going forward.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has another two amendments. Amendment 120

“would ensure that the CCA is confident that powers being delegated by the deputy mayor are appropriate.”

Sensibly, it seeks to add an extra protection, which we would support—we would not want to see any deputy mayors going rogue, for example. Amendment 122

“would ensure that the views of a majority of the CCA are fully considered”.

Again, we think this is absolutely appropriate. There are important matters that this could cover—for example, the transfer of fire and rescue powers to the chief constable, which is of course a possibility. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like first to welcome the offer from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of a meeting. I suggest that plenty of time be allowed for us to discuss some of the issues that we have been trying to get to the bottom of in our debates so far.

I have six amendments in my name, and they all derive from a first reading of the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. Going back and reading it all again, you realise you actually need to place amendments on these matters. In this group, there are Amendments 69, 72, 75, 114, 120 and 122, and they all have a common theme, which is the centralisation of power and the need for checks and balances in the decision-making process.

Amendment 69 would delete Clause 8(3)(f), which says that

“section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duty to allocate seats to political groups) in relation to an executive of the CCA or a committee of such an executive”

is disapplied. Therefore, it will not any longer be in place. That says to me that the deletion seems to encourage single-party control of a committee structure of a CCA. I just ask the Minister whether that is wise. It seems to centralise a power to an inner group of the CCA.

There has been a lot of discussion in the last group and then this one about district councils and their rights—clearly the meeting we are going to have will address some of those issues. Amendment 72 is a probing amendment and would prevent non-constituent members of the CCA voting. I say that to draw an explanation of why a non-constituent member of a CCA should have a vote. Why should the non-constituent members of the CCA become voting members? Will they all have a vote, or will it be only some non-constituent members? There is a big issue of principle here. Is it not enough for a non-council-nominating member to be in attendance? It is a simple issue. If you are a full member, you have a vote, and if you have a vote, you must be a full member. In other words, we have to have a discussion about the rights of district councils to be full members and have full votes.

Amendment 75 then addresses the issue of associate members of a CCA having a vote at the discretion of the CCA. I would like the Minister just to explain in what circumstances an associate member would qualify for a full vote. Again, the process could encourage one-party domination, by giving a majority party the right to give a vote to an associate member of their choice—or do I misunderstand? I am very happy to have misunderstood, but I am probing to know what the intention actually is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. The main takeaway for me is that it is crystal clear that the model is very problematic and that we need a proper discussion about the role and rights of district councils, because I honestly think that the model strips them of powers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that district councils are currently responsible for economic development and planning. So I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but I am sure that we will revisit these concerns in future debates on the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and to have the opportunity to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on her Platinum Jubilee. Like others, I express my respect and admiration for her many years of service. However, unlike many previous speakers, I cannot remember the Coronation and I have never had the pleasure of meeting the Queen. I met her mother once, but that is a story for another day. As the longest-serving monarch that this country has ever seen, as for almost everybody in the country and beyond, she has been a constant presence throughout my life, and, coming to this debate, I was thinking about what form that has taken and what it has meant.

I had a very ordinary upbringing, but I have a very early memory, from when I was very small, of being taken with other children and my family to stand at the roadside with my flag because the Queen was coming to our town. It was so exciting. Everybody was there with their flags, and I have never forgotten that huge excitement. Later, as a child, I had school trips to the Commonwealth Institute, as I am sure many noble Lords did. I loved going there. As a country child, to go somewhere and see so much culture and difference, and to look at the world outside my own small place, was something I found very precious at the time. We all learned so much from what was there. The Queen’s commitment to the Commonwealth and the institute, which was there to help children learn, was a very important part of my childhood and has been important for many people right around the world.

My next memory is of the Silver Jubilee in 1977— I was still quite young then. Again, it felt like the whole village had climbed Beacon Hill to light the beacon. We stood there and watched all the other beacons lighting up in the distance—what an extraordinary experience. The cherry on the cake for me was that there was then a party at the “big house”. The big house was Highclere Castle, so I tell people when we watch Downton Abbey, “I’ve been to a party there”. Then there was the privilege of being elected as a Member of the other place and being able to go to a garden party in Buckingham Palace, and then coming here and being able to pledge my allegiance to Her Majesty. Doing the work we do here and being part of your Lordships’ House is the greatest privilege of my life.

I think now about how the Queen has threaded her way through my life and how she is now threading her way through my children’s and grandchildren’s lives. I had a photograph from my daughter-in-law this morning, showing my grandchildren with their faces painted with Union Jacks and all dressed up to go to the jubilee party at their nursery school. The Queen has had such a huge and positive influence on generations of this country. Everyone feels much calmer and more secure when they know that she is there—basically, with us. So I hope she enjoys her jubilee celebrations as much as the rest of us and wish her all my best.

Elections Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

197: After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
“Unincorporated associations and permissible donors
(1) An unincorporated association required to notify the Electoral Commission of political contributions by paragraph 1 of Schedule 19A to PPERA must make permissibility checks on donations to the unincorporated association in accordance with subsection (2).(2) An unincorporated association must take all reasonable steps to establish whether the donor of a relevant donation is a permissible donor under section 54 of PPERA.(3) In this section, a “relevant donation” is any donation which is either intended for political purposes or might reasonably be assumed to be for political purposes.(4) An unincorporated association must not accept a relevant donation from a person who is not a permissible donor.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires unincorporated associations to establish whether a person making a donation for political purposes is a permissible donor and, if not, reject that donation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, there are quite a number of amendments in this group, of which Amendment 197 is mine. I want to pay attention to amendments specifically looking at foreign interference in our elections and some of the consequences of the provisions to extend the overseas elector franchise. Under the previous group of amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we discussed foreign interference, but looked specifically at digital materials, whereas this is wider.

By way of introduction, I say that voters deserve to know that elections in the UK are free and fair, and that laws are in place to safeguard them from unlawful influence. The Bill is an opportunity to make that tighter and better. The Electoral Commission recommended introducing new duties on parties, based on existing money laundering regulations, to enhance the due diligence and risk assessment of donations. The reasons behind this are to protect parties further and to build confidence among voters that sources of party funding are thoroughly scrutinised.

Unfortunately, we do not believe that the Bill takes this into account or does enough, as the Electoral Commission recommends. We need an effective regulatory and enforcement regime that ensures that foreign and dark money cannot enter our political system through donations to political parties. We believe there is the risk not only of money coming into the system that should not be there but of losing the level playing field that we have always striven to achieve in our election law. It is disappointing that the Bill so far does not address these problems. Our amendments and those of other noble Lords aim to address this.

As it stands, the Bill creates a paradox, because it opens the floodgates for a potentially large influx of foreign-based money into our democracy while making it harder for civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to have their say—as we heard during the debates on previous days on Clauses 24, 25 and 27—despite the massive contribution they make to British life. We have tabled amendments that would protect our democracy from this foreign money that is already impacting our politics. We believe that this Bill threatens to make the situation much worse.

Concerns about how our democracy is being affected by malign foreign influences have been highlighted in the Russia report and were mentioned in the previous debate. I am sure we will hear more about this from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he speaks to his amendment on this specifically, so I will not go into any more details about the Russia report.

Why are we concerned that the Bill will allow even more foreign interference in our democracy? The system created by the Bill is more vulnerable to overseas interference. It allows a person to call up any and every local authority to say that they were resident in the area 30 or 40 years ago and provide what we think is fairly flimsy proof; I am sure that it will not be a photographic identification, as would be the case for other electors. Having done that, they would then be able to donate enormous sums of money, if they wished. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not the intention but, if he accepts our amendments, he can be sure that the possibility of this happening is strictly safeguarded.

We have a number of amendments. Amendment 197 specifically looks at whether a person making a donation for political purposes is a “permissible donor”—if not, that is then rejected. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has an amendment that would require donors to be based in the UK, and one that would prevent overseas electors from donating. My noble friend Lord Collins has an amendment about the Secretary of State publishing

“draft legislation to regulate expenditure deriving from donations by non-UK nationals.”

We also support other amendments in this group that have been tabled to provide better security against overseas donations. If the Minister has understood our genuine concerns and intends to close this loophole that will weaken our democracy, he can choose from plenty of amendments that will greatly improve the Bill. We believe that this is a serious matter and that these amendments bring proportionate safeguards.

However, if the Government do not accept these amendments or commit to introducing their own in a similar vein, it will look as if the real motivation behind these changes to overseas voting is to create a loophole in donation law that would allow donors to bankroll Conservative Party campaigns from their offshore tax havens. What other justification is there for changing the law in this way, without closing this loophole?

Let us look at some of the evidence. Research from the Times shows that, through existing methods, the Conservative Party was able to accept about £1 million from UK citizens living in tax havens ahead of the 2017 general election. The Bill takes away the barriers that kept this at just £1 million. With the situation in Ukraine, it is more important than ever to end the flow of dirty Russian money flooding into our country—and that must include political donations, to block the threat of foreign interference in our politics.

We appreciate that it is impossible for someone with only Russian nationality, however rich they are, to donate legally to a UK political party. But what has undoubtedly happened is that a series of people with dual UK-Russian nationality or with significant business links with Russia have donated heavily to the Conservative Party in recent years. Questions about Russian donors that warrant further investigation have been raised in the media during the current Prime Minister’s tenure. For example, Lubov Chernukhin has given the Conservative Party over £2 million, £1.9 million of which was given after her husband, Vladimir, received money from Suleiman Kerimov, a man who was later sanctioned by the United States Treasury, not only for being a Russian government official: he was arrested in France for smuggling in hundreds of millions of euros in suitcases.

Then there is Mr Temerko, who has donated £1.2 million to the Conservative Party. The problem is that he used to operate at the very top of the Russian arms industry, with connections high up in the Kremlin. He works with Mr Fedotov, who is a key shareholder in Aquind Ltd, which the Guardian reports has donated £700,000 to the Conservative Party, along with another firm. This is unfortunately the same Mr Fedotov who, according to the Pandora papers, has revealed that his fortune was made through an offshore financial structure in the mid-2000s, at about the time that he was allegedly siphoning funds from the Russian state pipeline company, Transneft.

Another big Tory donor in the Johnson era is the businessman Mohamed Amersi, who has given £258,000 over the period. He advised on a lucrative telecom deal in Russia in 2005, with a company that a Swiss tribunal subsequently found to be controlled by an associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. We consider this extremely concerning. One reason for this is that the Sunday Times recently reported that high-value Conservative donors were invited to participate in an “advisory” group, during which they were allowed to bend the ear of the Prime Minister, senior Ministers and officials.

Members of the public have a pretty low opinion of politicians much of the time. Reports of outside influence that threatens to undermine our democracy serve only to further drive down trust. The Bill provides an opportunity to increase trust in our political system, but, unless this loophole is closed and political donations are cleaned up and given proper scrutiny, trust will continue to fall. If we are to open up our system by allowing far more overseas electors to vote, we must at the same time ban them from making donations to individual politicians and parties. That is the only way to ensure that our system does not receive unwarranted donations and influence from outside. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on several of the amendments in this group, and I will therefore speak to some of them.

Amendment 197 would tighten the rules on permissible donors and incorporated associations. Amendments 198 and 199 would limit permissible donations to companies and individuals resident in the UK, as would Amendments 204, 212D and 212E. Amendments 200 and 212G, the longest in this group, offer different language on the need for much more careful scrutiny of donations. Amendments 212A, 212B and 212DA, with the reference to the CSPL, would put caps on donations. The Minister will have noticed that, among other things, we are concerned that people who do not live in the United Kingdom should not be allowed to donate to political parties, even if they are on the electoral register.

In a facetious moment, I wondered whether I might table a separate amendment banning British citizens who live in Monaco or the Channel Islands from donating to political parties. Since the major motive of British citizens moving to those places is to avoid tax, that would be a way of saying that we do not want people who are deliberately avoiding paying tax in Britain to be funding political parties here, which we know happens. Some people believe that the main factor in extending overseas voting in the slipshod way it is being done is to make it easier for tax exiles to make major donations to the Conservative Party. “Perish the thought”, the Minister may say—but not everyone in the Conservative Party is as honest as he is.

I will talk mainly about Amendment 200, which some noble Lords may have noticed makes a reference to the ISC report on Russia. I remind the Minister that the Intelligence and Security Committee specifically recommended that the evidence it had collected on foreign interference in British politics should be published as fully as possible, and that the Government have said that they see no need to do so because, in their opinion, foreign interference has not been successful. That seems to be a mistake, and I hope that the Government will come to their senses and publish that evidence. So long as it remains unpublished, it will look as though the Government have something embarrassing that they are trying to hide.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned a number of major donors. One has to say in passing that it is astounding that we are now six years after the 2016 referendum and we still do not know where the largest single donation to the Brexit campaign came from. I was told by a senior figure in the City that everyone in the City knew exactly where it came from and that it had come from a foreign state. I do not know that—but we ought to be informed and we ought to have had some ability to discover where that £8 million came from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is a highly hypothetical question. I would be happy to give it consideration. For the moment I have to say that the answer is no, but I will reflect on it.

The other amendment in the noble Baroness’s name, Amendment 212B, seeks to place new obligations on donors to report donations to the Electoral Commission where the aggregate total for the year is over £5,000. Yes, there should be transparency around any significant amount of money funding parties and election campaigns, but that does not mean putting the burden on donors. It is for political parties and candidates—the recipients of the donations, who are familiar with the rules—to keep accounting records and report donations over the relevant thresholds to the Electoral Commission. Placing any unnecessarily bureaucratic responsibility on donors such as individual citizens could lead to a chilling effect and discourage people from making donations.

Amendment 212DA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to cap donations to political parties at £10,000 per calendar year. Perhaps inadvertently, it would require that every penny in a collection box be recorded and attributed to someone, effectively spelling an end to small donations. Even more significantly, the Government cannot, on principle, support caps on donations as this would only lead to taxpayers footing the bill for the inevitable funding shortfall. There is absolutely no public support for expanding the level of public funding already available to political parties. Public funds should be focused on delivering world-class public services and levelling up communities across our country.

The noble Lord asked about the recommendations in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Government responded to the report published by the CSPL on regulating election finance in September last year. The Elections Bill already contains measures that closely link to recommendations made in that report, such as the new requirement on political parties to declare their assets and liabilities over £500 on registration, and a restriction of third- party campaigning to UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners. However, as the Government response stated, the recommendations in the report deserve full consideration, and more work must be done to consider the implications and practicalities, which, I hope the noble Lord will acknowledge, are very considerable.

In conclusion, controls on electoral funding and transparency of electoral funding are a key cornerstone of the UK’s electoral system and contribute to a healthy democracy. UK electoral law sets out a stringent regime of donations controls to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations and that political donations are transparent. The Government absolutely recognise the risk posed by those who wish to evade the rules on donations. That is why there are existing provisions which explicitly prohibit money being funnelled through permissible donors by impermissible donors, and why it is an offence for donors and campaigners to purposefully evade the rules.

It is right that voters and organisations with a legitimate interest in UK elections be able to donate to political parties, candidates and campaigns. Our democracy is strengthened by people donating to campaigns that they believe in. I am, of course, aware that stories about political donations are never far from the newspapers, but rather than being indicative of a broken system, I firmly believe that this is a sign of the system working. The checks that parties and other campaigners are required to carry out and the reports published by the Electoral Commission allow the press and the public to scrutinise political donations. It is very important to balance the need for parties and other campaigners to generate funds against the cost of actually carrying out checks on donations to ensure they come from permissible sources. The current rules are proportionate and achieve that balance. I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords will feel able not to move their amendments when they are reached, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to this large group of amendments. In responding to my amendment, he said that there was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment to extend the franchise for overseas electors. My amendment was not about that manifesto commitment; it was about the donations that could then come in through that action. I was not saying that that should not happen. The amendment was specifically related to donations, and that is what I want to come back to now.

I think we can say that we disagree as to whether excessive foreign donations being allowed to come into our politics is a good thing and whether there should be a cap on them. If the Government feel that stopping overseas donations is not an option, in my opinion, we should certainly look at whether we can cap the amounts.

I agree strongly with the first thing the Minister said: the integrity of our electoral law is of the utmost importance. This is why there has been so much concern in this debate over whether that integrity is being undermined by the way in which political donations currently work. I know that the Minister said that the current laws manage this, but it is really disappointing that he does not accept the great concerns that have been raised about how donations can ultimately buy political influence. We must be very careful in our country that we do not tip into the way in which other countries have operated when donations get very large. I just wish that the Government would accept that there is a problem and that it needs to be nipped in the bud. This is an opportunity to legislate for that.

I will finish by saying that a lot of strength of feeling on this issue has been expressed in Committee today. I am sure that we will return to this on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 197 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

205: After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
“Review and consolidation of electoral law
Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a recommendation of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report on the Elections Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I shall be brief in introducing my amendments in this group. I have spoken previously in Committee and in the House about the fact that I used to work in consultation—that was my profession—and was an associate of the Consultation Institute. So these amendments are around my concern about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation on significant parts of the Bill.

My Amendment 205 looks to implement a recommendation of the PACA Committee, which referred to the lack of pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny. Basically, it recommended that, once the Bill had been introduced and Second Reading had taken place, the Government should introduce in the Bill a statutory commitment to post-legislative scrutiny of it. This is what my amendment aims to achieve; and my Amendment 206 would also implement a statutory committee for that purpose.

I also have two amendments in my name about provisions not coming into force, one until

“seven days after the Secretary of State has published a consultation on the provisions”

and the other until

“seven days after the Secretary of State has published an equalities impact assessment”.

We are concerned that no impact assessments have been done on all the impacts of this Bill.

There is a long tradition of cross-party working and consensus when we make changes to our law on our democratic and electoral systems. There has always been agreement that we should come together when we change such laws. It is disappointing that this Elections Bill represents a notable exception to this tradition. The lack of cross-party working and pre-legislative scrutiny ahead of bringing the Bill forward was very disappointing; for me, it is a worrying change. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, I did not say that we were minded to consolidate at all. I go back to what I said: the Government’s immediate priority will be the implementation of our manifesto commitments, which the Bill delivers. I have not given any undertaking that we will do another Bill to consolidate, as was set out in that group of amendments.

Amendment 213 would prevent Schedule 8 coming into force until a time when the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament on the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens. The Government’s position on this policy is clear and settled and was set out in detail in a Written Ministerial Statement in the other place on 17 June 2021. Now that we have left the EU, there should not be a continued automatic right to vote and stand in local elections solely by virtue of being an EU citizen. We have made provision to protect the rights of those who made their home here before our exit and preserved rights where that can be done on a bilateral basis, protecting UK citizens living in those countries in turn. A statement of clear intent on this matter has already been made to Parliament and I can see no purpose in restating our position. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. However, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether suitable consultation has been carried out on the Bill. The Consultation Institute states in its response:

“Many of the proposed changes in the Bill are not accompanied by evidence detailing why they are necessary or desirable. Where evidence in support of changes is cited, it has generally involved little consultation and engagement with the public, particularly with the general public as opposed to institutional or organisational stakeholders.”


So in the institute’s opinion, as well as mine and others’, including PACAC, there simply has not been sufficient scrutiny or consultation on the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his strong support, and I am sure we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 205 withdrawn.

Elections Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

160A: Clause 28, page 40, line 31, at end insert “or
(b) where a person is convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe the circumstances of elected candidates being found guilty of terrorism offences.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments to Clause 28 in this group, and then further amendments, all looking at disqualification from elected office. My Amendments 160A and 161 to Clause 28 are really just to probe different government decisions as to why the Bill is laid out as it is. Amendment 160A is to probe the circumstances of elected candidates being found guilty of terrorism offences; that is pretty self-explanatory. Amendment 161 was tabled because the Government have put in the Bill that someone could be disqualified for five years from standing for elected office, and it probes the reasoning behind the period of five years. If the Minister could give the Committee some understanding of where the figure came from, that would be very useful.

Amendment 168 to Clause 32 would add fundraising as an activity undertaken for election purposes, because I think pretty much every political party does it as an election activity. Amendment 170 to Clause 33 is tabled so that we can see clearly the details of any disqualification orders given to ensure transparency. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has an amendment in this group, so I will be interested to hear his introduction to it. Amendment 172 to Clause 34 probes the Government’s intention to vary the offences. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister some more detail on that and how it came to be in its current form.

I shall not give a long speech, as we have a long way still to go on the Bill and it is pretty clear what the Government are looking to achieve by this section of it. There is one issue I will raise, which was raised in Committee in the other place as well, and it concerns the five-year period. Many of the people who go on to intimidate candidates, agents or campaigners—unfortunately, I have been a victim of that, as have many people who stand for elected office—and who commit such crimes and acts, are not really interested in standing themselves to become elected representatives. Some of them are just opposed to the whole idea of how we run our democracies. But is that five-year period going to stop anything? Do the Government think that anything further could be done to manage the problem? Intimidation is becoming an increasingly difficult issue which, sadly, anyone putting themselves forward for public life at any level has to deal with.

We support the Government in their really important effort to do something about intimidation of candidates, be it physically or through social media. The Opposition are happy to work with the Government if there are ways in which we can continue to improve the situation, support people who put themselves forward for public office and protect them from this kind of behaviour. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to my Amendment 171 in this group, to which I would like to speak. Before I do, and with the indulgence of the House, I refer to some comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in Committee last week:

“However, given the important concerns that have been raised on the secrecy of voting, Minister Badenoch will be writing to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police to confirm our common understanding of the position set out in legislation—that the only people who should provide assistance at a polling booth are polling station staff and companions who are doing so only for the purpose of supporting an elector with health and/or accessibility issues that need such support. We are confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to respond promptly”.—[Official Report, 21/3/22; cols. 750-1.]


I raise that because the Minister wrote to the Electoral Commission and the police last week in very clear terms, covering the points made by, I think, every Member in the debate, and emphasising that there should be no element of doubt. Noble Lords will note that the Minister said that it was hoped that the Electoral Commission and the police would respond promptly. I quote from the letter the Minister wrote to those two organisations. In the penultimate paragraph, she says:

“I would be grateful for a quick response … to reassure Parliament that the secrecy of the ballot is upheld at those polls”—


that is, in May—or the Government may be minded to

“strengthen the law in this area, given the constitutional importance”.

I hope that the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police will respond promptly, so that this matter does not have to come back at Report, as it may well have to do. I thank the Committee for its indulgence while I dealt with that, but it is important, given the general view that was expressed.

I move on to my Amendment 171. I am sorry here to possibly be raking over bad memories for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who has said on a number of previous occasions that he was involved in the Tower Hamlets affair several years ago—and this is driven by the issue of Tower Hamlets and Lutfur Rahman. Lutfur Rahman was banned for five years, which may be where the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about five years comes from. That was the maximum penalty available to the election court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is considered to be the correct benchmark taking into account proportionality and the fact that many of these crimes will have further consequences because other crimes have been committed.

Amendment 168 seeks to widen the definition of a campaigner in Clause 32 explicitly to include fundraising activity as an activity undertaken by a campaigner for election purposes. I can assure the noble Baroness that fundraising activities for a registered party and a candidate are already implicitly captured, as provided by the broad wording that defines campaigners as engaging in activity to “promote or procure” support. However, we will explore options to clarify this further in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, but I ask her not to press it.

Amendment 170 to Clause 33 would require a Minister of the Crown to publish a statement outlining the details of the disqualification order in the event that a person were to be elected to the House of Commons while subject to a disqualification order. Further, we note the noble Baroness’s opposition to Clause 33 more generally. As explained, the new disqualification order disqualifies offenders from being elected to various offices. Clause 33 would ensure that this disqualification applies to membership of the House of Commons. To clarify, while the other relevant elected offices already have provisions which state that an election is void because of disqualification, there is currently no equivalent provision in relation to the election of a Member to the House of Commons.

Therefore, Clause 33 has an important role to play in ensuring that the new intimidation disqualification order operates as intended and as I suggest the electorate would expect it to operate. There is no reason why those elected to the House of Commons should be treated as a special case or held to a lower standard than any other elected office in this country. Anyone convicted of a politically motivated criminal intimidation-related offence should not be sitting in the other place for the duration of the disqualification period.

Turning specifically to Amendment 170, I reassure the noble Baroness that it would not be necessary. Although there is no notice requirement in Section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in the event that a seat becomes vacant, there will be a Motion for the Speaker to issue their warrant to make out a new writ for the election of a new Member to fill that vacancy. The writ would then be issued, and Members of the House of Commons would be made aware that a vacancy has occurred. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

I now turn to Amendment 172, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which proposes to limit the regulation-making powers to amend Schedule 9, which lists the existing criminal offences of an intimidatory nature in respect of which the intimidation sanction can be made. The purpose of Clause 34 is to future-proof the new intimidation sanction so that it remains relevant and can continue to apply to offences of an intimidatory nature, recognising that the nature of intimidation and abuse can shift, and indeed is currently shifting, particularly online. A relevant example of this is the online safety Bill, introduced earlier this month: it proposes new communication offences originally recommended by the Law Commission last year.

In addition to enabling Ministers to respond to and add new offences, the clause ensures that the list provided in Schedule 9 remains accurate through powers to omit offences from the list and vary the description of offences already included in it, if and when any of the listed offences are amended or repealed in law. These provisions will require that any statutory instrument laid using these powers is subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise and decide whether to accept any proposed changes to Schedule 9. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 172.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the clarification she has provided, particularly around my amendment seeking to include fundraising. It would be extremely helpful if that could be added to the Explanatory Notes. She also explained that the Government want to future-proof intimidation sanctions, particularly online. When the Minister talked about varying the offences, did she mean just varying the descriptions of offences as things change to make sure they are always up to date? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No—we are talking about ensuring that the list provided in Schedule 9 remains accurate through powers to omit offences from the list and vary the description. So it is varying or omitting.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

So the “varying” bit is just to do with the description of the offence. I thank the Minister.

As the amendments I have tabled show, my main concern is the fixed five-year period. Other noble Lords have raised that issue too—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly said that that is only one parliamentary term—so it would be good if the Government could look at that again. I will make another suggestion. If the Government are going to stick with the fixed five-year period, what would happen if there were a repeat offence? Would there be another five-year period, or is there an option to look at a greater sanction if such an offence were committed again? Otherwise, it is not a deterrent if the people just miss out every now and again. It would be good if the Government could have another think about that; otherwise, this issue will come back on Report, because there are clearly concerns about it.

I thank the Minister for her comments on the intimidation of candidates’ agents and campaigners. I am aware that she rightly said that other offences are available for people to be convicted of if they are found to have behaved like that. I know that this is not part of the Bill, but often the effectiveness of the police’s response to such intimidation varies greatly across the country. It would be good if the Government could also consider that in some form or other. For the moment, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 160A withdrawn.

Ecocide

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I think the noble Lord underestimates the leadership role that we are playing this year in tackling international action to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. At the summit in Carbis Bay, the G7 leaders agreed a 2030 nature compact, committing for the first time to the global mission to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. We also have the upcoming COP 26 in November. All the actions we are taking through the Environment Bill and other legislative means will provide a leadership role in trying to get these messages across to the rest of the world.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that mining and deforestation activities that plague the Amazon are cases of ecocide? Does she also agree that an international law against these activities could become a catalyst for finding new and sustainable ways of operating?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I agree but, as I said, it is very difficult to take the international law path for the reasons I outlined. What we are doing in the UK to stop people using illegally logged wood in furniture imported into the UK is probably a more effective way for us to prevent these sorts of crimes being imported. However, I agree that more needs to be done internationally, but perhaps not through the International Criminal Court.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot offer a debate in Government time. My hon. Friend is right to salute the importance of the park run movement as an entirely voluntary body that has energised, in more than one sense, thousands of people around the country to get more active and fitter in the way that every doctor would recommend. Also, as he says of Corby, it has helped to raise significant sums of money for charities.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

Teachers at Whitehaven Academy in west Cumbria have been striking over the crumbling buildings and meagre resources. In 2010, the Government scrapped the Building Schools for the Future programme, under which Whitehaven Academy was to get significant funding. Netherhall and Millom schools are also waiting for funding. Will the Secretary of State for Education make a statement to the House about exactly how the Government are going to sort out this mess so that Cumbrian children can have the education they deserve?

[Mr Lidington]

I will ask the Education Secretary or one of her team to write to the hon. Lady about that particular issue. I am sure that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that the national funding formula for schools will ensure a fairer distribution of available resources than has been the case in the past.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I will ask Treasury Ministers to write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on that.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

It has already been mentioned that the Government published a northern powerhouse strategy report yesterday, but I cannot see in it any mention of Cumbria or nuclear energy. Given that west Cumbria will physically put the power into the northern powerhouse, I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for a debate on the issue, so that the Government can appreciate how much the whole of the north of England has to offer, and why Cumbria must not be an afterthought.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree that Cumbria must not be an afterthought, and I am confident that the leaders of the northern powerhouse locally would make sure that the decisions that they took worked to the advantage of everybody living in that area. I am aware of the importance of the nuclear industry to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and I would have hoped that there was common ground between her and this Government, because we have taken the difficult and controversial decision to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations, which I think is generally supported by Members on both sides of the House who have experience of nuclear power plants in their constituency.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend spoke, as she always does, with great vigour and on the basis of significant knowledge in the debate yesterday. She will have had an answer at the end of the debate from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who has responsibility for veterans. The Government will publish its proposals for defence estates later this year, and that, I am sure, will provide Members with further opportunities to debate this subject.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The Swansea bay tidal lagoon project would pave the way for £15 billion of investment in tidal lagoons, including one planned for the Solway firth in my constituency that could provide electricity for 1 million homes. We need tidal power as part of our future clean energy. When the Government’s review of tidal lagoon technology reports next month, may we have a ministerial statement in support of that technology?

[Mr Lidington]

As the hon. Lady says, the results of that review are due to be reported in the next few weeks. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is aware of her request for a statement on the matter. I am sure that there will be opportunities in the House to debate these matters and for her to raise her concerns.

Business of the House

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I confess that it is not a subject with which I am familiar. It strikes me that it is likely to involve the responsibilities of a number of Departments. My advice to him is to look for opportunities to raise it with the relevant Ministers at questions or to secure an Adjournment debate, so that he can get a direct response from Ministers to the concerns his constituents are expressing.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

More than 65,000 people are employed in the British nuclear industry, and I am delighted that more than a fifth of that workforce are women. May we have a debate on the importance of the nuclear sector to our economy, particularly considering the looming energy gap, and on how we can support nuclear through continued investment in skills, infrastructure and the supply chain? It would be particularly pertinent, given the recent announcement on Hinkley Point C.

[Mr Lidington]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the nuclear industry. I share her view that nuclear has an important part to play in this country, as it already has in France, as part of the overall energy mix to ensure that we have supplies of fuel that are as clean as possible and reliable. The nuclear industry provides many opportunities for high-skilled and relatively well-paid employment, often in parts of the country where such jobs are very scarce indeed. Although I cannot promise her an early debate in Government time, I think her comments will have struck a chord with hon. Members in all parts of the House.