Peerages: Letters Patent
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
On the point of sitting MPs, as I said yesterday, the sort of reports that have led to this debate are rumour and speculation. However, we will of course reflect on the debates we have and have had here—yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I would like the Minister to remind me when it was that Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned. When was it? Then, we know that the speculation that has been talked about is about a resignation list, not an honours list and not nominations—we had nominations recently. That is the speculation. She keeps saying that the Prime Minister takes responsibility. Will Prime Minister Sunak admit responsibility for this list, and will he stop and make sure that he does not put His Majesty in this invidious position, because it will bring disgrace on the Government and disgrace on His Majesty?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is a convention that has been observed by successive Governments that a resignation honours list can be put forward by a departing Prime Minister. It can take a bit of time: I think that Theresa May and John Major took a few months to put their resignation lists together. They are then forwarded to the Prime Minister of the day. The practice now is that the House of Lords Appointments Commission looks at proposals and makes recommendations, which are taken into account by the Prime Minister in the confidential advice that he offers the sovereign.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Developed Countries
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The attendance of the UK delegation—which includes the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Environment Secretary, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith from our House, Graham Stuart MP, and, indeed, a former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—shows the seriousness of this matter. To be fair, we have these big COPs, as we had in 2015 and as we were honoured to chair last year, and not all world leaders go to every COP every year. Of course, if action on climate change is going to work—for exactly the reasons that I have already articulated, in terms of there being no borders for greenhouse gas emissions—it is absolutely essential that China, India and other big emitters step up to the plate and deliver on what they have promised and, indeed, even more.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned Boris Johnson. What has happened to Britain’s global leadership since Glasgow? Boris Johnson said today that he is there in a purely supportive role, but he also said that Britain should not pay reparations for climate change. This was in complete contradiction to the Prime Minister’s announcement today that we should enter into discussions about this question. Can the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister needs to do to make sure that his words are credible?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not like the direction of that question. However, we have encouraged discussion on loss and damage. Obviously, the Labour Party has come out with a big initiative on reparations—which is not funded—and it is very important that we join in the discussion of loss and damage to try to find a joined-up way forward, with support from around the world. The whole problem about climate change, as I have said in the House so often, is that it is an international challenge as well as a domestic challenge.
Standards of Behaviour and Honesty in Political Life
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for initiating this debate. Trust and confidence are, as we have heard, built and sustained by adherence to rules—rules that are applicable to all, without exception. As the right reverend Prelate correctly stated, they have a moral foundation but, like our constitution, they have developed over time. They have developed because of circumstances and issues—sometimes bad apples, but sometimes something more systematic. That is what this debate is really about.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate referenced the Nolan principles, which are themselves relatively new in the development of our constitution. At the time, I felt, “Why should the obvious need to be stated?”, but those principles were important not only because of the odd bad apple but because there was a problem with the system. We developed proper structures arising from that.
My noble friend also talked of resignations. One of my abiding memories from doing my A-level in British government is my teacher constantly banging on about Crichel Down. The underlying case appeared trivial but the subsequent public inquiry exposed a catalogue of ineptitude and maladministration. My teacher said that its significance was that it was taken as a precedent on ministerial responsibility. As we heard in the debate, the case resulted in the resignation of the then Minister of Agriculture, Sir Thomas Dugdale. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded us, it became a convention. We do not need rules and regulations: we have conventions that we can adhere to and support.
Of course, when Sue Gray’s final report exposed industrial rule-breaking at the heart of government, the person who said he took full responsibility suffered no consequence. That is something that really hits you in the face. Her report should have been a catalyst for change—an opportunity to introduce reforms to strengthen integrity and ethics in our politics, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its November 2021 report. The committee is absolutely right to suggest placing more of the ethics regulators on a statutory footing, covering ministerial interests, public appointments and business appointments for former officeholders, thus giving them clearer accountability and greater independence from the Executive they regulate.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on his assessment of the Government’s response to that report. I think that it required a much more positive response then the Government were prepared to give. The Prime Minister’s response was to cherry pick the recommendations, weakening the Ministerial Code and concentrating power in his own hands. He ended the long-standing principle that breaking the Ministerial Code should be an automatic resigning offence and failed to introduce the committee’s recommendation that resignation should be the outcome of the “most serious breaches”, setting a dangerous precedent in which Ministers who commit offences such as bullying, sexual assault or bribery would not automatically have to resign.
This week, in the other place, Labour proposed an Opposition day Motion backing the full package of recommendations from the CSPL’s 2021 report. Sadly, that Motion was defeated by government MPs. Labour’s proposal is to restore standards in public life by introducing an ethics and integrity commission: a single, independent body, removed from politicians. It would have powers to launch investigations without ministerial approval, collect evidence and decide sanctions.
Although we support the introduction of graduated sanctions for minor breaches of the Ministerial Code, as the committee recommended, they will be meaningful only if full independence is granted to the adviser to open investigations. Without that, it is left to the whim of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, described these two changes as “inextricably linked”. He said:
“Graduated sanctions and greater independence for the Adviser were … part of a mutually dependent package of reforms, designed to be taken together.”
More graduated sanctions are meaningless without an independent adviser.
Boris Johnson also confirmed that the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, before his resignation as the independent adviser, would still require approval by the Prime Minister to launch investigations. The Prime Minister will also retain a power to veto investigations—in contravention of the recommendations of the committee. One has only to look at the difference between the previous foreword and Boris Johnson’s diluted version: integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency and honesty have all disappeared, as has the reference to the public interest. The Ministerial Code is not supposed to be a reference guide; it is supposed to be a rulebook to protect the highest standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Geidt and Lord Evans, have both warned of the Prime Minister’s “low level of ambition” in his handling of the Ministerial Code and his failure to grant more independence to investigations. I hope the Minister will be very clear about why the Prime Minister went against the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It would be good to have a clear response on that. We have also seen that the PM’s own anti-corruption tsar John Penrose walked out on him, accusing him of breaking the code of which he is both author and protector.
What we have seen from the Prime Minister in recent times is a pattern of degrading the principles of our democracy, a pattern of dodging accountability and a pattern of demeaning his office. He has now driven both of his own hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair—twice in two years. The noble Lord, Lord Geidt, described resignation as a “last resort” to send
“a critical signal into the public domain”.
He said that the Prime Minister had made a “mockery” of the Ministerial Code and that he would play no further part in that.
It was not about steel. I was on a BBC political programme the day the resignation letter came out, and I could hear the spin from the Prime Minister’s office: “Oh well, this is about a trade agreement; it’s about steel.” It was not. When I read the letter, particularly the last paragraph, it was clear to me that the Prime Minister is prepared to break the rules. What I am concerned about is that I have no doubt that he will do it again, and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, resigned. That is a very powerful message that people should take account of.
The truth is that this Prime Minister behaves as though there is one rule for him and another for the rest of us. During the Lords debate on the Urgent Question repeat, the Minister said it would be ensured that
“any work being undertaken by the independent adviser continues and is completed.”
Is that still the case? Can the Minister give us that answer? In response to my noble friend Lady Smith’s question about what will happen now, the Minister said that
“the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, raised a number of issues about the role of the independent adviser, as indeed did PACAC in its session earlier this week. As was said this morning, it is right to consider those carefully and take time to reflect on them before moving forward. However, this role has been important in public life.”—[Official Report, 16/6/22; cols. 1747-48.]
How long will it take the Government to reflect, and does the Minister still think that this role is important in public life?
Covid-19 and the Use and Scrutiny of Emergency Powers (Constitution Committee Report)
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the committee for its report and my noble friend for her excellent introduction. What I recall most about the pandemic—I appreciate that, because it is such a void in our lives, it is very difficult to remember what we did—was the strength of our communities. Our communities and the people within in them were so determined to support and care for each other. That is something I had not seen before in my lifetime. Perhaps Members who were alive during the war may have seen it. It was that resilience that I was most impressed by; people were determined to care for each other and those most vulnerable in our communities, and we should not forget that.
My noble friend’s introduction highlighted four key themes. The first is on why the Government chose the legislation they did, particularly the 1984 Act and the use of the Coronavirus Act 2020, rather than others that were available to them. I think we all appreciate that with fast-tracking of legislation and the extensive use of secondary legislation, essential checks on executive power are lost and the quality of law suffers. There is no doubt about that. Emergency legislation is never an acceptable alternative to effective government planning for periods of crisis.
The second theme, which all noble Lords have referred to, is to do with the fact that, although the four Administrations in the United Kingdom clearly demonstrated that they were capable of working together, the pandemic created political tensions. One example that the committee highlighted—one I was very familiar with—is how rules on face coverings on public transport in one part of the UK created difficulties when you crossed the Severn Bridge, and things like that. Clearly, that led to confusion.
The third theme is lack of clarity. There were a number of occasions when government publications and statements did not distinguish between public health advice and legal requirements. Rules were identified by the Government as having legal effect without any law having been made—for example, guidance about exercising once per day. My noble friend Lady Bryan highlighted that this confusion created strains on the relationships between the UK Government and certain local government leaders within England during the pandemic. We should not forget that there was obvious public confusion. One study, conducted when the tier regulations were in force, found that one in five did not know what tier their area was in, leading to extensive confusion.
The final theme of my noble friend’s introduction was that no Government should be frightened of learning the lessons, and I will return to that in a moment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, highlighted, the committee recommended that Parliament be consulted on any future draft legislation on a contingency basis to address a potential emergency. That is what we are all looking for, because it provides for the most sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.
The pre-legislative scrutiny of what became the Civil Contingencies Act provided a clear model for that. The Government’s response to the committee’s report merely stated that the Government will “endeavour to provide opportunities”. That is not a sufficiently clear commitment. I hope the Minister can reassure us that it will be more than an endeavour; it is a principle that we all want to ensure is taken on board. I hope he can be a lot clearer in his response today.
On learning the lessons, I read the Covid-19 inquiry final terms of reference, which have just been published. The Constitution Committee recommended that a review of the use of emergency powers by the Government, and the scrutiny of those powers by Parliament, should take place in advance of that inquiry, and for very good, obvious reasons. The results of that could then inform the public inquiry and any planning for future emergencies. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure us on that point and that the Government will consider committing to undertake a full-scale review of emergency powers, as recommended, in time to inform the public inquiry.
Of course, no one knows when the next pandemic or national emergency will occur. Despite what I heard from the previous speaker, I have no doubt that there will be one, and we need to be better prepared. That is one of the most important lessons that we can learn. I hope that the Government will commit to an expedited review of the CCA, because that would also allow for fuller parliamentary scrutiny.
As we have heard, the Government introduced a large volume of new legislation in response to the pandemic. Because the Government chose not to use the Civil Contingencies Act, some argue—I am inclined to that view as well—that they evaded the Act’s important constitutional safeguards and that, as a result, parliamentary oversight of significant policy decisions was limited. A Law Society Gazette article in 2020 argued that the CCA represented a legal landmark:
“It updated and consolidated laws which enabled public authorities to prepare for, and respond effectively to, emergencies”.
That is the key theme that we should focus on. How do we ensure that public bodies and people responsible for safeguarding our communities are better prepared in advance for something that we know will come to hit us again?
The first of two points in my conclusion is on the committee’s recommendation on sunset clauses. I have read the Government’s response on that. There is a strong case for ensuring that when we bring in these special powers, there is no keeping them on for longer than is necessary. I understand that the Government have been rescinding these powers as we go on, but some still remain. We need a clear commitment that in future the Government will adopt the principle of presumption in favour of sunsetting regulations. I think that will reassure us all about the taking of emergency powers.
I will conclude on the question of confusion. One of the committee’s recommendations was that the Government adopt alternative drafting practices to make the regulations more accessible to members of the public and lawyers alike. It asked that the Government should set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, first, the regulations being amended; secondly, the substance of the amendments being made; and, thirdly, the reasons for the amendments, following a practical approach that would ensure that people understood what they were about.
The Government’s response to the report did not appear to acknowledge the case for improvements in drafting the Explanatory Memorandum, so what does the Minister think will be necessary in future national emergencies to ensure less confusion among the public—and perhaps even a less confused Prime Minister? Surely improvements to the drafting of future Explanatory Memorandums will be a critical part of that.
Ultimately, we hope that the national inquiry will ensure that we all learn the lessons, but I do not want us to forget that the most important lesson for all of us is the importance of community and supporting each other.
Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. As he and others have stated, they are basically a continuity agreement while we process the much bigger piece of legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred, the Procurement Bill. One of the things I open with is to repeat the mantra that the Minister often does about how this House conducts its role in scrutiny of legislation. When I read Hansard from the other end, I thought I would get some useful questions from the Opposition—and of course there was none, so I am grateful for noble Lords here today who have prompted an interesting debate. I suspect that most of the questions will be answered on the general legislation on procurement—the Procurement Bill—including some of the issues that we will address in amendments, not least defence and security, which are critical issues.
I do not want to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, but the Opposition support the instrument and are happy that it provides the continuity necessary before other legislation takes over. I should add that I am not formally becoming a shadow Cabinet Office Minister; I am simply standing in for my leader, who covers these issues—and as deputy leader I of course do as I am told. I have at least been able to speak for a short time in support of the instrument. I echo some of the comments already made and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken, including the noble Lord opposite; I nearly always say “my noble friend opposite”. I also looked at the proceedings in another place, but I will tread no closer to that than he did.
I am grateful for the general welcome for these provisions. I was asked a couple of points. I am not sure I can answer every one, but if I do not I am sure we will pick them up. On the question of whether state subsidy is defined in the regulations, it is not defined in this SI. It was also not defined in the UK-EFTA agreement procurement chapter from which this follows.
I was asked about abnormally low tenders and subsidies going more widely than the definitional point. Article 6.9 of the UK-EFTA agreement provides that, where a tender appears to be abnormally low, the contracting authority may ask a supplier whether the price in a tender takes subsidies into account. That was the point to which my noble friend acutely referred. The instrument makes this explicit—it is on the face of the procurement regulations. Prior to the UK leaving the EU, contracting authorities and utilities receiving an abnormally low tender could investigate whether the supplier had obtained state aid and, if that was not compatible with Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it could reject the tender. These provisions were removed from the public procurement regulations through EU exit legislation.
The current procurement regulations are largely transposed from the EU directives, which include a number of permissive provisions. For this reason, it makes sense to make explicit mention of the fact that, when investigating abnormally low tenders, contracting authorities are able to make inquiries as to whether the bid includes subsidies. However, overall the Procurement Bill will aim to deliver a simpler regulatory framework and increased flexibility and does not include every possible action that a contracting authority might take. Therefore, there has not been such an impetus to make explicit this provision in the new Bill.
So far as the relationship is concerned between the Bill and where we are now—and both my noble friends referred to the period between now and the coming into being of the Procurement Act, if your Lordships so please; I am never daring enough to take that for granted—we need to bring forward this statutory instrument now to amend existing procurement regulations to enable the procurement provisions of the UK-EFTA agreement to come into force as soon as possible. When the Procurement Bill has received Royal Assent, during its implementation period it will repeal certain UK procurement regulations, including the UK public contracts regulations; the UK utilities contracts regulations; and the UK concession contracts regulations, to which the UK-EFTA agreement is being added. However, this is not expected until at least six months after Royal Assent.
The UK-EFTA agreement is included in Schedule 9 to the Procurement Bill, along with all other relevant international trade agreements, which ensures that the procurement obligations regarding EFTA suppliers will be carried forward seamlessly into the new regime. The amendments made by these regulations also add, as I said in my opening remarks, the UK-EFTA agreement to the corresponding Scottish procurement regulations, which will not be affected by the Procurement Bill.
I assure my noble friend Lady McIntosh, as again I said in my opening remarks, that nothing in this SI or, indeed, in the UK-EFTA arrangements overall, reduces any standards. We remain committed to holding up high environmental product and labour standards, and I can certainly give that assurance.
On the question of the lower thresholds in legislation, there are provisions—and I am happy to correspond or at least send advice to my noble friend before we reach the Procurement Bill. As she will see, there is a whole section relating to the level below which there are exemptions. We must abide by our international obligations in relation to trade under the GPA; that is, to give fair access to both sides of the agreement, which is reflected in these regulations.
We have enjoyed a strong trading relationship with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway for many years, as some noble Lords were kind enough to refer to. Indeed, I think that Norway is in the top 10—perhaps our 10th most important trading partner. By implementing UK-EFTA procurement commitments, this instrument will, we hope, help to continue and build on this prosperous and friendly relationship between our four countries.
I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations. I am grateful for the general tenor of the debate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords: Appointments
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister have made it clear that they do not accept the principle that a cap should be placed on the size of your Lordships’ House. Such an event with an appointed House would mean that the appointed House was impervious to any response from the House of Commons in a constitutional crisis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can help the House. On 18 November, in talking about the Appointments Commission, he said he was happy with the current procedure whereby the commission is able to recommend non-party-political appointments as well as advising on propriety. Could he tell us in what circumstances a recommendation of the Appointments Commission can be rejected by the Prime Minister and what justification there is for that?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the commission’s role is an advisory one. The Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. We believe that the commission plays an important role and performs it well. Noble Lords keep returning to an individual case. The Prime Minister said he saw the case of my noble friend as a clear and rare exception, and we have no plans to change the status of HOLAC.
Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber
Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not be tempted to follow speculation about what might have been the motives of a colleague in the Government in relation to a particular letter. The Secretary of State is always inventive, but I will repeat what I have said: that these are matters for Parliament.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the simple fact is that the noble Lord answered a similar Question just over two years ago and that this is another recycled announcement from a Government who talked about this two-and-a-half years ago. For all the gimmicks, slogans and press releases, on every measure of levelling up we are going backwards. Instead of making such announcements, this Government should get on with helping families facing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation and use a windfall tax on energy grants to fund up to £600 of help for families. That is what this Government should be doing.
Elections Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury ExcerptsMonday 25th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-II Second marshalled list for Report - (21 Apr 2022)
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not have much to add to the noble Lord’s contribution. We support his contention that this is an unnecessary clause. I agree that the principle is one that we should completely reaffirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, did in a previous debate. We need the assurances from the Minister. If he is unable to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, seeks, we will support him if he decides to divide the House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Clause 19 is there to clarify the law on benefits in kind and make it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind that they have actually used or which they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf. We had some discussion on this in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledges. This was already widely understood to be true, prior to the Supreme Court judgment in R v Mackinlay and others. The Supreme Court judgment has led to concerns that candidates and agents could be responsible for spending they had not consented to or were unaware of or not involved in. This is an unacceptable situation and risks a chilling effect on people willing to put themselves forward as candidates and agents.
The noble Lord has been so kind as to refer to the positive engagement we had and I thank him for his continued interest in and engagement on the topic. In response to some of the concerns he raised, including those raised again today, I am happy to provide clarity on the government position. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked two specific questions and I can say to him that the Government are absolutely committed to the long-standing principle of a level playing field for general election campaigns, whether in campaigning being carried out at constituency level or nationally. The noble Lord referred to a statement made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in 2019 when agreeing with the importance of the principle of a level playing field in relation to spending at elections. The Government maintain the commitment my noble friend gave; nothing in the Bill seeks to undermine that principle.
The proposals in the Bill will not change the fundamental principle that party spending in support of a particular candidate in a local area falls to be recorded as candidate spending against the local limit. Instead, the clauses bring forward changes seeking to maintain the level playing field by ensuring that all candidates and agents across the political spectrum are clear and confident in their legal responsibilities. Clause 19 also makes an equivalent amendment to the same rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure that the rules are consistent. We believe that these changes will bring much-needed reassurance and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules which apply to notional expenditure for reserved elections. In combination with expanded statutory guidance—which we will discuss shortly—from the Electoral Commission on this matter provided for in Clause 20, this measure will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel confident doing so, clear in their obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked a further and very specific question. I can say to him that the Government are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to campaigning in South Thanet in 2015. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018 related specifically to the consideration of a particular point of law and concluded that there was no requirement for authorisation in Section 90(3) of the 2000 Act, which was contrary to the understanding of many and led to concerns about what expenses could potentially be incurred on a candidate’s behalf even without their knowledge. As a result, there have been calls from across the political spectrum for clarification of those rules. A cross-party committee of MPs, PACAC and the Law Commission have called for clarity on the rules in recent reports. The changes enacted by the Bill will only clarify the law so that it can be commonly understood. As I said, any uncertainty could lead to a democratic chilling effect, with candidates and election agents, who are often volunteers and fearful of their personal circumstances, unwilling to expose themselves to risk.
Finally, it is important to note that Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already prohibits “local” third-party spending over £700 which has not been “authorised in writing”; therefore, it requires specific authorisation. Where such spending is authorised by a candidate, the candidate must also report on the spending incurred by the third party. If a third party, which could include a political party, spends over that threshold without authorisation, an offence has been committed. The Elections Bill does not alter this. Where a third party, including a political party, has provided property, goods and services free of charge or at a discount, or has made use of property, this must be recorded as a notional expense.
I can assure the noble Lord on those points that we are absolutely committed to the assurance my noble friend gave and that we are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to 2015 and the issues of uncertainty that have arisen. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those assurances and be ready to withdraw his amendment that would remove this clause from the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome and support the noble Lord. Throughout the stages of the Bill, I have repeatedly welcomed some of his contributions, particularly in relation to third-party campaigning and creating the certainty and clarity that they need to ensure that the chilling effect does not have a huge impact on our democracy. I very much welcome this, and I welcome the principle that the code of practice provides that necessary parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome these amendments.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, one of the charming aspects of your Lordships’ House is that when a Minister is being chided for not listening to the House it is rammed to the gills but when the Government make a concession there are not quite so many here. None the less, I thank not only my noble friend Lord Hodgson but colleagues in other parts of the House who have made this case, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place for perfectly understandable reasons.
The amendment would create a new clause in the Bill which would remove a permissive power that allowed the Electoral Commission to prepare a code of practice, and instead, as your Lordships have asked, replace it with a requirement on the Electoral Commission to produce such a code of conduct. It also specifies the scope of the code, sets out the consultation process and procedure for the code, and creates a defence for third parties who are charged with offences under Part 6 of PPERA. It also makes the necessary consequential amendments to Clauses 20 and 25.
As my noble friend kindly acknowledged, in Committee I promised to consider his suggestions on a code of practice for third-party campaigners. He made his arguments in good faith, on the basis of great experience and genuinely reflecting the opinions of the sector. As he acknowledged, my officials and I have since met him and concluded that these changes are necessary and important for third-party campaigners.
The new statutory guidance—I do not know whether it will come to be called “the Hodgson guidance”—will provide certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules relating to third-party campaigning. The amendment provides for the guidance to be comprehensive, and I say to my noble friend that it is our hope that this will address the term “the public” used in Part 1 of Schedule 8A on qualifying expenses.
The amendment requires the commission to consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, as in our earlier proposals on the strategy document. It also requires the commission to consult such other persons as the commission considers appropriate. As part of the statutory consultation, the Government would certainly expect a cross-section of civil society groups to be consulted; I can give my noble friend that assurance.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government are fully supportive of these three amendments, and I very much hope that your Lordships will support my noble friend.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief again. I accept that, in Committee, I went on at length about this issue, although I did not repeat that later on. I accept that the noble Lord has entered into some proper consultation with the TUC and TULO. I welcome those meetings, and I certainly welcome the letter he wrote to both Frances O’Grady and Mick Whelan. It was welcomed particularly in reference to Clause 26—not only the reassurance that this will come from the Electoral Commission, but that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny. So I very much welcome the Minister’s response and the fact that this House has been able to influence him in removing a clause from the Bill. I thank him very much.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on this in Committee and I accepted what the noble Baroness the Minister said at the time, that actually the requirements in the current law will be strong enough to ensure that the principle that we all want—greater transparency—will be applied. Certainly, I accepted that and understood it, because I think we all shared the concern that “reasonably practicable to comply” could be a huge loophole and she assured us that that would not be the case. We also discussed in Committee the fact that the industry itself, the online industry, had produced the means to ensure greater transparency. I made reference to the Adobe briefing, which I think is really important. I think we are all at one in terms of what is required.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I agree with him completely that it is again providing the means to ensure greater transparency. Certainly, from these Benches, we support his amendment and if he decides to divide the House, we will support him.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Elections Bill, let us not forget, will introduce one of the most comprehensive digital imprint regimes operating in the world today and I submit to your Lordships that whatever shortcomings they may feel, or however much further they want to o’erleap the ambitions of the Government, these proposals are about increasing transparency for voters and empowering them to make informed decisions about the material they see online. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, there is much agreement on that point, but we cannot, I fear, support Amendments 58, 60 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because they do not, in our submission, strike the right balance between increasing transparency and proportionate regulation of campaigning, while Amendments 61 and 65 would be highly difficult to enforce and would risk unduly stifling online campaigning and free speech, although I concede to the noble Lord that this matter will be further debated in the Online Safety Bill.
Regarding Amendment 58, it will not always be practical to display the imprint as part of the digital material itself; for example, as noble Lords have said, in a text-based tweet, where there is a strict character limit. This amendment would not give campaigners the limited, yet crucial, level of flexibility afforded by the Government’s regime and would thus risk unreasonably hampering their ability to campaign on some digital platforms. The above reflects the carefully considered and pragmatic approach we have sought to adopt. I know the noble Lord’s concerns; I appreciated the discussion we had and I understood where he was coming from. The perceived permissiveness of the guidance surrounding the Scottish digital imprints regime, in so far as it created a perceived loophole, was worrying him. I am pleased to confirm on the record here, as I said privately, that our regime will not operate in the same way.
The digital imprint regime that applies at elections in Scotland does not specify requirements regarding the location of the imprint, which is why the Electoral Commission’s guidance in Scotland was not prescriptive in this respect. However, our new regime does provide the necessary specifics on the rules regarding the location of the imprint. Campaigners will be required to ensure that their imprints are displayed as part of the material. Only when this is not reasonably practicable—this touches on my noble friend’s amendment—may the imprint be located elsewhere, but it must still be directly accessible from the campaigning material. Those who do not comply will be committing an offence. Furthermore, the statutory guidance we are proposing as part of our regime will provide practical directions to campaigners on how to follow the rules, including regarding the location of the imprint. This guidance will be subject to parliamentary approval, meaning that parliamentarians will be able to ensure that it provides sufficient clarity for campaigners to comply with the rules. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by those points.
On Amendment 60, candidates and registered campaigners already have to detail their election spending in their returns and provide invoices for payments over a certain amount, including in relation to digital campaigning. These are then made available for public scrutiny. The Government have explained that this requirement on campaigners to submit more detailed invoices or receipts about digital activity would need to be looked at carefully, as the detail provided is determined by the suppliers themselves, not the recipient. It could therefore prove difficult and burdensome for campaigners to comply with these additional requirements.
Similarly, Amendment 62 would require all campaigners promoting paid political advertising, and not the online platforms, to maintain a library of those advertisements, with specified information, for at least 10 years. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but we have explained that in our view this risks adding an unreasonable burden on campaigners, particularly smaller groups that rely on volunteers, or groups that are established only for the lifetime of a particular campaign. It is also not clear that there is a sufficient case for regulation in relation to political advert libraries, given, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that major platforms such as Facebook, Google and YouTube already make available libraries of political advertising that they host.
My response to Amendment 61 will focus on paid-for political advertising, as defined by Clauses 41 and 42, rather than other electronic material, as defined by Clauses 43 and 44, given that other electronic material is relevant only to UK-based entities anyway, with the exception of registered overseas electors who have also registered as third-party campaigners. The Government agree with the principle that there should be strict limitations on ineligible entities overseas spending money campaigning during UK elections, including on digital advertising.
Clause 25 will already remove the scope for any legal spending by foreign or otherwise ineligible third-party campaigners above a £700 de minimis limit. This is a huge reduction, given that those same actors can currently spend up to £20,000 legally during the regulated period in England, or £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Further to this, by requiring an imprint on all paid-for electronic campaigning material, regardless of where in the world it comes from, the digital imprint regime will already greatly improve transparency of political advertising from overseas actors. For any material that is published in breach of the imprint rules, the enforcement authorities are able to require the relevant social media platform to take down the material.
Strict controls on spending and clear transparency about origin are essential. But I cannot agree to a fast-considered and potentially disproportionate blanket ban on all political material from foreign actors within scope of the digital imprint regime. We would need again to examine carefully the implications and practicalities of enforcement and restrictions on freedom of speech to avoid any risk of unintended consequences.
I turn to Amendment 65. The Government remain concerned that this amendment includes no reference to intent and that the proposed new clause, as drafted, could criminalise unintentionally false statements. It could, therefore, be very broadly applied. It could also discourage people from raising any legitimate concerns for fear of a statement being considered false. This offence could potentially provide broad powers to clamp down on anyone who expresses genuine concerns about the process of an election. Overall, we believe that this clause could have unintended but potentially severe implications for freedom of speech.
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take electoral disinformation and misinformation very seriously, but we believe that these are best addressed through non-legislative measures, such as the counter-disinformation unit to which the noble Lord referred and which was explained during our debate in Committee. Any regulation must be balanced with the need to protect freedom of expression and the legitimate public debate which is crucial to a thriving democracy.
The response on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is one of disappointment, but I thank him for his amendments. I hope that I have brought some clarity to the questions raised. I hope he feels able to withdraw Amendment 58, although I acknowledge that he will pursue certain matters on another Bill.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The Government entirely agree that it is right that third-party groups campaigning at elections should be transparent and clearly identifiable. This is why the digital imprints regime will require recognised third-party campaigners to declare who they are when promoting relevant online campaigning material to the public, including but not limited to their websites. Where third-party campaigners use their websites to campaign, as defined by Clause 43, an imprint will be required. Promoters will be required to ensure that the imprint—or access to it—is retained as part of the material, if it is moved on. Where promoters comply with the digital imprint rules by adding an imprint in material displayed on their website, the imprint will be visible for as long as the material is available to the public online and remains in scope of the rules.
I know that my noble friend is not convinced that it is sufficient that third-party campaigners are already publicly listed on the Electoral Commission’s website. We believe that the current rules, supplemented by the new digital imprint rules, will provide increased transparency and identify recognised third parties. There are specific problems about the construction of this amendment, which I have discussed with my noble friend. As currently drafted, the amendment would create a new offence but does not specify a penalty for its commission or any statutory defences against the charge. Further, and I am sure this is entirely inadvertent, the amendment is drafted such that any website owned and operated by a recognised third-party campaigner—for example, a large charity which might have many different websites—would be captured, even if it were unrelated to the campaigning activities for which the third party is registered. It could lead to a disproportionate application of criminal liability. These proposals would need further discussion with third-party campaigners and potential enforcement authorities. Digital regulation is a complex area. Few have thought about it more than either the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, or my noble friend. But these digital imprint provisions were consulted on publicly—twice.
My noble friend is not entirely enamoured of the letter I wrote to him recently to assure him that the Government will continue to keep the transparency of digital campaigning under review. I underline this commitment. I assure my noble friend and the House that I will ask my officials to engage with the Electoral Commission to consider whether my noble friend’s proposal could be included as best practice for third-party campaigners, which the House has agreed to secure, in the commission’s guidance.
With these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel reassured to some degree by the clarifications that I have been able to give and withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearing the end of this debate on Report. I cannot say that this Elections Bill is one of this Government’s finest constitutional measures. Although it is late in the day, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, a very clear exposition of some of the questions which have not been answered, and I think it is perfectly fair to ask the Government—even at this late stage on Monday night—to provide some answers.
I find myself sitting here thinking back to the time that John Stonehouse disappeared, which some noble Lords may remember. When he disappeared, it became clear that there was no provision under British electoral law to remove him from his position as a Member of Parliament. Even though he was arrested and imprisoned in Australia, his constituency went unrepresented, because there was no way of getting rid of him. So things that might appear to you to be unlikely, such as those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, might still one day actually occur.
The only thing I would add is that, over the Easter Recess, I met a British citizen who left Britain 55 years ago. He has been living in an EU country. I can report to the House that he was astonished to discover that the Government were now planning to give him the vote. He asked me a number of questions, such as “Where would I cast my vote?”—which brings me to the questions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Some countries, France being one of them, have overseas constituencies. After decades of inaction, the Americans finally made it possible for Republicans and Democrats abroad to vote while living in the UK. I am sorry to say this at such a late stage, but this is an area that has not been as fully thought through as it should have been. That is exactly what this House is here for and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for his excellent introduction to this amendment. It is worth focusing on the fact that the Minister has, on numerous occasions, stressed the impracticalities of some of the amendments that have been considered today, saying “We can’t do this because it’s impractical”. Yet, without any thought, the electorate can be increased from 1 million to 3.3 million, as we heard from my noble friend earlier, without any infrastructure or effort to manage the implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about other countries. Other countries have different voting systems, such as list systems and regional systems. But our democracy is fundamentally based not on a party system but on the constituency system, where an individual MP represents the people of that constituency. With what is being proposed, we could suddenly have, as my noble friend said earlier, 7,000 or 8,000 people being allocated to a constituency who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, have never lived there. And we will not even make any attempt—or there will not be any practical way—to verify people’s entitlement to vote.
In this Bill, we have said that if a resident in a constituency turns up at a polling station but fails to produce photographic evidence of their entitlement, they will not be given the vote. But someone who lives abroad can get a vote in a constituency and be sent it without any proper checks. It is absolutely crazy that the Government are not taking the time to look at the practical implications of this. It comes back to the point: why is it being done? It does not really appear to be being done to defend and enhance our democracy. I know I have said it before, but all this effort is going into people who have left this country, who have never lived here or who have lived here for a very short period of time—we are extending the vote to them—but people who have lived here for 27 years, and paid tax and national insurance, will not be given the vote. It is crazy.
This amendment is absolutely right. It would ensure that the Government pay proper attention to the practical implications of their policy and do so in a timely fashion. It is not as if we are trying to say, “Don’t do this”—even though I agree with my noble friend and would prefer that the Government did not do it. The amendment is saying, “Okay, if you’re going to do it and if it’s a principle you support, do it properly. Understand the consequences, particularly the consequences for our democracy”. This side wholeheartedly supports this amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will first answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I am sorry that he did not get as much information as he needed, but I will have to hold the House a little longer to give him more detail.
On candidature, anyone who wants to be a candidate in an election in this country needs to be a resident of this country and to have proof of residency. So, nobody living abroad can be a resident of this country—that is the first thing.
Elections Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury ExcerptsWednesday 6th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (5 Apr 2022)
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has put in front of your Lordships just now. I would have hoped to hear a much more vigorous response from both the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police if the facts are exactly as he brought them to this House. I hope very much that the Minister in replying will be able to give assurances on the one hand about past history but, more importantly, that the department will write in appropriate terms to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police setting out clearly the best legal advice of the department’s lawyers on the interpretation to be put on current legislation. If the Minister is not able to offer us that course of action, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, may want to push his amendment a little further.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. Certainly, this is a matter of concern. I will stress a point he has made: the law is clear, and there is no ambiguity about that. So, if there is an issue, I think it is a matter that the Minister should raise with the Electoral Commission.
Over the many years that I have been campaigning, I have been in no doubt about the authority of the police who patrol around polling stations. It is absolutely clear. One of the things that worries me about the amendment is that it is not necessarily going to clarify something which I think is clear in law. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister to make this clear to the Electoral Commission. The police should have that responsibility; they do not need the advice of the Electoral Commission to apply the law, which, as the noble Lord said, has been there for hundreds of years.
So I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will be very clear that the law needs to be applied and that there is no doubt about it. If there is ambiguity from the Electoral Commission, I hope that the Minister will point it out to it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject forward again. I know he strikes a chord with all of us on all sides of the House. It is an important issue. There is an important principle which underpins these concerns, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the law is clear. Indeed, in the material sent out for the Tower Hamlets elections in May 2022, the guidance to electors states:
“Under no circumstances are family members and/or friends permitted to assist each other when casting their vote in the polling booth”.
That is clearly the position.
A person’s vote is theirs and theirs alone. I have said before in this House that it is completely unacceptable in the 21st century that women—and it is normally women—experience pressures from family members in the way that we have seen. The Government fully share the feelings of Members who have spoken about the importance of ensuring that this is firmly stamped out from our elections. Secrecy of the ballot is fundamental, and I state unequivocally that the current law requires that voters should not be accompanied by another person at a polling booth except in specific circumstances, such as being a formal companion or a member of staff.
The Electoral Commission issues guidance to returning officers and their staff to support them in upholding the integrity of the process. The Electoral Commission guidance specifically advises polling station staff that they should make sure that voters go to polling booths individually, so that their right to a secret vote is protected. The Electoral Commission will update its existing guidance as necessary, in light of new Clause 8 in the Bill, which extends secrecy protections to postal and proxy voting.
As my noble friend asked when we last discussed this, given the important concerns that have been raised on voting secrecy, Minister Badenoch wrote to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police, as my noble friend acknowledged, to confirm our common understanding of the position in law 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 purposes of supporting an elector with health and/or accessibility issues which need such support. That is the position.
My noble friend spoke about the concerns he still has on the ongoing integrity of elections in Tower Hamlets. However, I hope that having seen the swift commitment of my honourable friend Minister Badenoch to take this issue up, he will be assured that there is and will be a concerted effort to ensure that the integrity of those elections can be upheld and that the law can be upheld everywhere. I know that my noble friend was not satisfied with elements of the Electoral Commission’s response, but I hope very much that the commission will examine what has been said in your Lordships’ House today and reflect on the points put forward. In that light, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will introduce this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. I hope that we can avoid what we incurred in Committee, which was a detailed and long debate about the merits of proportional representation versus first past the post. I do not think that what we are dealing with here is about removing proportional representation. The supplementary vote system that has been introduced, particularly in London, is not about proportional representation. I hope that we can therefore avoid a detailed debate about the merits of the respective positions. Nor is this amendment about undermining the principle of first past the post. In introducing this amendment, our concern about the Government’s late action is that they failed to consult those affected, particularly in London, properly. The failure to consult undermines the introduction of this element into the Bill.
I know that, in Committee, there was a strong focus on spoiled votes in London. They can be properly addressed through, for example, the design of the ballot paper and the information that is provided. However, as I say, I am not concerned about the principle here so much; I accept that the Minister has made compelling arguments for why we should maintain first past the post. I do not object to them—my position is not necessarily that of other opposition parties here—but I do think that the Government have made a big mistake in undermining the supplementary vote system. In the past, my noble friends have referred to it as a way of ensuring, when we introduced the mayoral system, that somebody who is elected has a broad acceptance given the unique powers they have been given, particularly in London.
I hope that we can have a relatively short debate about this, and that we get commitments from the Government that they recognise that the introduction of this measure undermines the principle that you should first consult those who are most affected. I hope that the House will support this amendment; I should say that it is our intention to test the opinion of the House on this important principle.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, together with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and I fully support it. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, many of which I agree with, and there are some outstanding issues of principle which we debated earlier in your Lordships’ House but need to be restated.
Let us remember that Clause 12 was a late change; it did not appear until Committee in the other place. It changes the voting system without consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said. I recall that when the referendum on the establishment of the Mayor of London was held, the voting system was part of that consultation, and it is dangerous when a Bill introduces at a late stage a change to the voting system which has been approved in a referendum of the people in that place. I urge the Minister to use great caution in doing that.
This is not just about London; it is about the elected mayors of combined authorities—of which there are an increasing number—the elected mayors of local authorities in England, and police and crime commissioners. Because it changes a system of support from the supplementary vote system, which requires more than 50% support at the ballot box, to first past the post, which does not require 50% support, there is a fundamental issue of principle. Why do the Government think it proper for an elected mayor to have such widespread powers over resources, but to be elected by possibly as low as under a third of those voting? When one considers the structure of our parliamentary democracy, with the number of MPs and the desire of political parties to win general elections with the majority of the seats—or if you think of the election of a council leader, who has to have the majority support of all councillors at the council’s annual meeting—it seems strange that, in England, mayors who do not have majority support at the ballot box are to be elected, yet they have substantial control over resources and policies in their area. In London there is at least an assembly, but in the other mayoral combined authorities there are no assemblies. The scrutiny function is not well undertaken within combined authorities in England. The Government may or may not push this through. When the noble Lord, Lord Collins, moves this to a vote, I hope the House will ask the Government to think again, because major resources should not be allocated to mayors on the basis of a minority vote in the ballot box, and almost certainly on a low turnout.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out that the Government have made much of the fact that 4.3% of ballot papers were spoilt in the last London mayoral election in 2021. That was up from 1.9% in 2016, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, identified the reason for the increase: the ballot paper had 20 candidates and it ran to two columns, and it was confusing. Had it been designed differently, the level of spoilt ballot papers would not have been as high as 4.3%. I hope the Government will think again.
The control of public money needs to be at the front of our minds. We could find that someone with a very low proportion of votes cast on first past the post ends up with substantial power and control over the spending of resources that exceeds his public support, and we might begin to wonder why.
Lord True (Con)
I have not read as many volumes on proportional voting systems as the noble Lord. I simply repeat that 430 out of 440 voting areas supported first past the post in 2011.
It is clear from points brought forward in our debate that alternative voting methods can be confusing and not easily understood. In September 2021, the Government responded to the Electoral Commission’s report on the London mayoral elections. The figures are that 114,201 first ballots were rejected and, of second preferences, 265,353 were invalidated. We have heard that this was all because the form was difficult, badly designed and so on and so forth. This is not a system which it is easy for the electorate to understand. We have heard that only 4.3% of votes were rejected—that is one in 23.
First past the post reduces complexity for voters and for electoral administrators. It makes it easier for the public to express a clear preference, providing strong local accountability. It is also cheaper. For example, the complex system in London requires e-counting—a devastatingly boring count that, last time, cost £9 million.
In our contention, these voting systems are a recipe for confusion and for legislative and administrative complexity. We intend to pursue our manifesto commitment to support first past the post both locally and nationally. I acknowledge that there is disagreement on the matter. I do not believe we need to debate it further now. I respectfully urge that the amendments be withdrawn and that this clause to bring simplicity and clarity to these elections should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, what really struck me from the Minister’s responses was that, if the Government felt so strongly about this, why was it not in the Bill originally? If the London elections in particular caused so much of a problem, why was it not a priority? The fundamental issue is not about the principle of PR or the supplementary vote—which is not PR. It does not undermine the position of first past the post. Our concern is that this has been introduced at a late stage without any proper consultation with those most affected. This undermines the Government’s position, especially as they inserted it into the Bill at such a late stage. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should point out that, if Amendment 39 is passed, I cannot call Amendment 41 by reason of pre-emption.
Elections Bill
Lord Collins of Highbury ExcerptsWednesday 6th April 2022
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (5 Apr 2022)
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a brief comment in support of Amendment 44. In Committee I proposed an amendment to give those liable to pay council tax the right to vote in local elections. The Government said no, but I still believe that to be right in principle. I see it in part as an issue of consumer right—in other words, the principle is, “No taxation without representation”.
We are now in a position, it seems, where the Government have decided to extend the franchise to long-term emigrants from the UK, so that they can vote in parliamentary elections, but they have so far denied the right to vote to those nationals of other countries who live and pay tax here. I think that is a very serious anomaly. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to
“the tangle of voting rights left by imperial history”,—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1284.]
which gives the franchise to some but not others. I find it regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken by the Bill to correct the many anomalies that still exist. I hope the Minister and the Government will be prepared to reflect on that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I made quite a lengthy contribution in Committee and I have no intention of repeating it—although I think there are some points that are worth emphasising.
This is not a matter of principle. In fact, the Government and Opposition are agreed that people under the settled status scheme should retain the vote they had under the EU membership we had previously. It is just that new entry to the country will stop on 1 January 2022. That is the real issue. What we have been arguing about is the fact that those who put down their roots in this country and have lived here for 25 years—or even 15 years, to use the comparison with others who are going to get the vote—have made their home here, pay their tax here, and in the main pay their council tax here are not going to have the vote if they come here and achieve settled status.
Of course, one of the things about settled status, ILR and ILE is that they all require five years of continuous residence in the UK. Is that not a good basis for offering the vote? Is that not the connection that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned? I am hesitant to quote him, because he says that I sometimes get it wrong, but I heard him say “close connection”. We should surely afford someone who has lived here continuously, made their home here and paid their tax here the right to vote and be part of the local community they live in.
I can hear the Minister say, “They can become British citizens” but, as I said in Committee, there are people who make their home here who may not wish, for many reasons, to take out British citizenship. For some, like my husband, it is because they do not want to give up their Spanish citizenship, for example, where other countries do not afford the right to dual nationality. This country does, but there are many others that do not. These people do not want to break that relationship, particularly if they have family or parents there.
This is not a matter of principle that divides us. It is something that I fear this Government have done on many occasions, which is to say, “We’re not going to give the vote to people who make their home here unless the Governments from the countries they came from give our nationals the vote”. It becomes a bargaining issue. Again, I do not think that is right. It should be a matter of principle, which we have already conceded; under the agreements that we have, EU nationals with settled status will continue to have the vote. If the Government can agree to that, why can they not agree to this amendment?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I regret that we will not be able to agree to these amendments, but I preface my remarks by sending my very best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Green. He ploughs sometimes a lonely furrow in this Chamber, but he is somebody of the most outstanding integrity and is greatly respected in your Lordships’ House. I very much hope that my good wishes are passed on to him. The engagement meeting I had with him when I had Covid was over Zoom, so I do not claim responsibility—but I offer the profoundest sympathy to him.
Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, would require the Government to consult each Commonwealth country and produce a report on how we might confine the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens to citizens of those countries that grant British citizens the right to vote. Each country has the right to determine its own franchise, and the United Kingdom has done this. Qualifying Commonwealth citizens—that is, those persons who have leave to remain in this country or who have status such that they do not require such leave—are entitled to the parliamentary franchise. The rights of Commonwealth citizens are long-standing, and they reflect our unique historic ties to the family of Commonwealth nations and with Her Majesty the Queen.
Historically, while the Commonwealth countries were part of the British Empire, their nationals were subjects of the British Crown, and they were governed directly by the British Parliament. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act provided that only British subjects could register as electors. The term “British subject” then included any person who owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the Crown territory in which he or she was born. This recognised in part the contribution of servicemen of so many nations who fought in the Great War.