Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for tabling this Motion. It is both a privilege and a responsibility to stand before your Lordships today to address a topic critical to our shared future: the need for social cohesion and strong, supportive communities in an era defined by rapid change and global uncertainty. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, for his work and dedication shown to tackling climate change, especially during his time as president of COP 26, and for making such an eloquent maiden speech.

In times of change and uncertainty—political, economic or global—it is easy to feel overwhelmed. The challenges we face can seem insurmountable, but history teaches us a powerful lesson: communities that stand together emerge stronger. Our society is woven together by thousands of local communities—communities where people look out for each other. Neighbours might not speak every day, but they notice if something is wrong, they check in on each other and they work to make things better. From grass-roots community groups to parish and town councils, people come together to improve their towns and cities, supporting one another and tackling local issues head on.

In uncertain times, it is cohesion across these communities that enables us to navigate disruption with confidence. Social cohesion can provide stability when the world feels unstable. Whether responding to a crisis such as a natural disaster or navigating long-term challenges such as economic shifts, the ability to collaborate and trust one another is the foundation for progress.

In recent years, we have really seen this truth play out. During the Covid-19 pandemic, communities came together to support the vulnerable, adapt to new realities and care for one another. People volunteered, shared resources and built networks of support that transcended differences. Places of worship transformed into vaccination centres, providing vital support services. They opened their doors to serve their communities, ensuring that vaccinations were accessible to everyone, including the most vulnerable. The work during the pandemic was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I thank the noble Lord for providing such an optimistic view of the pandemic. These acts of solidarity proved that even in crisis our collective strength can overcome great challenges.

The violent disorder that followed the tragic incidents in Southport this summer showed just how fractured our social fabric can become when the flames of discord and hate are fanned. Yet there was an extraordinary response of unity and solidarity across the country. Faith leaders, local organisations and residents came together to host dialogues and provide support to those affected.

When I visited Southport, after the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, soon after the tragic events it suffered, I heard incredible stories of resilience and courage: stories of those people who came out the morning after the unrest, working as one to rebuild the walls of the mosque, clear up the damage on their streets and put their community back together—a point made by noble Lords across the House. Their efforts reminded us that even in the face of fear and anger, the power of community can prevail.

This has been a wide-ranging debate and there are many issues related to social cohesion, periods of change and global uncertainty that I could cover. I will address some of the specific issues raised today, first, by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I was pleased to hear of the launch of the new inquiry into community cohesion by our esteemed colleagues on the Women and Equalities Committee. The questions they have posed will help build our shared understanding of social cohesion and related issues. I look forward to hearing more about their work.

The most reverend Primate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, spoke very clearly about the issue of social media. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a new set of laws to protect children and adults online. The Act will give providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and to take down illegal content when it appears. The strongest protections in the Act have been designed for children and will make the UK the safest place in the world to be a child online.

On the pertinent point about misinformation and disinformation, it is unacceptable that people are using social media to cause damage, distress and destruction in our communities. We will pursue criminal behaviour online just as we do offline. Where people can be identified, we will take action and ensure that those who incite hate online face the consequences. The Government have been proactively referring content which breaches terms of service to social media companies for them to assess and take action. The Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary has met social media platforms to make clear their responsibility in tackling the spread of hate online. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will look more broadly at the role of social media following the disturbances.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and others mentioned Dame Sara Khan’s independent review into social cohesion and resilience, which made a range of recommendations to build cohesion and strengthen democratic resilience in the UK, including the concept of freedom-restricting harassment. This Government are always keen to see constructive proposals to address the threats we face and bring our communities together, so we are looking at that review.

The most reverend Primate also talked about poverty. Clearly, many communities are struggling with the effects of deprivation and poor economic growth, exacerbated by the increased cost of living, as mentioned across the House. If left unchecked, such conditions can increase vulnerability. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing, low civil participation and poor community cohesion leave communities more at risk of extremist narratives, disinformation and conspiracy theories. For instance, seven of the 10 most deprived areas of England witnessed disorder over the summer. Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Hull, Manchester and Blackburn all experienced violent disorder and are ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England. My department is undertaking work to understand how social and economic factors play a role in harming social cohesion and is developing a more strategic approach to supporting communities and societal resilience more broadly.

We need to eradicate child poverty. This is something that we have to work on. There is no silver bullet here, but the answers lie in tackling pay, benefits, work, housing, education and health. This is not just about policy; it is about priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, made an important point about young, white, working-class males. We are determined to ensure that no one is left behind. Every young person must have the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations and play a part in our society. Our work in the opportunity mission aims to break the link between background and success to ensure that all children are able to reach their potential and thrive, including white, working-class boys—one of the lowest attaining groups in our schools. The mission will also tackle the national challenge of school absence, including by bolstering young people’s sense of belonging.

The Government were elected on a manifesto that stressed a partnership approach with local authorities. Together with local leaders, we will develop ambitious, long-term local growth plans and capitalise on existing strengths to deliver new opportunities and maximise potential. This is why 75 towns in the UK that were originally selected will receive a package of up to £20 million funding and support: a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Information on the new programme, including a revised prospectus and technical guidance, will be published in due course. These documents will set out the strategic objectives for the programme and how they will enable communities to deliver work in their areas to deliver the Government’s missions.

The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York also talked about devolution. The Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, with landmark legislation to expand devolution across England and devolve further powers to local leaders with local knowledge and skin in the game to drive economic growth and empower communities. This legislation will be coming soon. This cannot all happen overnight, but change starts now. Our ambition is for a new, stronger partnership between central and local government, recognising that each area has different strengths and that local representatives know them best.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, talked about faith engagement and faith leaders. The Government celebrate the central role of faith in our national life. Faith inspires a great number of people to public service and provides help to those in need. This Government are committed to harnessing the power of faith for national renewal, helping us to make progress against our missions and to improve social cohesion and resilience. My ministerial colleagues and I have been meeting a wide range of faith and belief leaders and representatives and interfaith practitioners, and have been heartened to hear about the important work they undertake to foster good relations in our communities. Let me be clear. In a few weeks, I will as a Minister have visited and engaged with all faiths across the country, not just the major faiths. I think that is important. One of my first engagements was at the Board of Deputies, where I talked to Muslim and Jewish leaders about how they can build better relationships.

My department was pleased to support the recent running of Inter Faith Week, and we still fund a number of partners delivering excellent cohesion programmes in local communities, which we know contribute to positive interfaith relations. I have heard calls about the importance of faith literacy in government and our public services, which I will consider carefully as part of my wider work as Minister for Faith.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, talked about hate crime, and it is shocking that recent Home Office statistics show that 71% of all religious hate crime constitutes anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. We will be tackling this problem, and we will soon announce our approach to dealing with Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I also assure the House that the Government are not focusing on combating anti-Semitism and Islamophobia at the expense of hate crimes against those of other faiths. We are clear that all forms of racial and religious discrimination are completely unacceptable. Our focus is on building a strong culture of cohesion where diversity is celebrated.

I know that global events pose challenges to our communities in the UK. Prejudices and fear no longer remain confined to distant conflicts. They cross borders and directly impact our communities, as pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Leigh of Hurley. I add my solidarity to the Jewish community in Melbourne who have suffered an atrocious attack in the synagogue.

The 7 October attacks, along with the ongoing war in Gaza and developments in Lebanon, have a profound effect on communities here in the UK. More than a year on, divisions still exist. Communities are feeling traumatised, isolated and less safe, while some individuals and groups seek to perpetuate further discord. However, I have been heartened by the efforts of individuals and communities to preserve vital local relationships, and our work with Muslim and Jewish communities to strengthen unity and ensure that everyone feels safe is ongoing. The Government are developing an integrated, cohesive approach to tackling these challenges, which will address racial and religious hatred and strengthen cohesion across all communities—more will be announced soon.

The Government strongly condemn the thuggery and racist rhetoric seen during the violent disorder in the summer. It has no place on our streets or online. The noble Baroness, Lady Porter of Fulwood, asked what more we will be doing. My department is leading a cross-government effort to support the recovery of the towns and cities affected and to develop a long-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, working in partnership with communities and local stakeholders to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues. We have launched a £15 million community recovery fund to support 20 areas that have been affected. This support package will be distributed to local leaders, allowing them to partner with local communities to direct the funding to the areas most in need and how they see fit to best support their communities’ recovery. That is just a start.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharma and Lord Willetts, alluded to climate change. Tackling the climate crisis is essential for our economic growth and our efforts to protect current and future generations. In November we announced new climate goals at COP 29, including reducing emissions by 81% by 2035, and the Prime Minister has called on other countries to bring forward ambitious targets. Of course, the Government are always mindful of the impact that wider global change and uncertainty, including climate change, can have on migration, while always ensuring that our immigration system is controlled and managed effectively.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, talked about emergency preparedness—I will write to her on that statistic about websites. The Government are aware of the changing risk landscape over the coming years. MHCLG will look to go further in strengthening local resilience forums, following the recommendation of the 2021 independent review of national security risk assessment, which informed local resilience forums’ risk assessment. Those forums now have more dynamic risk information and a new analysis of chronic risks, including climate change, to inform long-term thinking.

The noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Cashman, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths talked about immigration. The UK has had a long, proud history of welcoming people from other countries. The country will always need migration. Our new Plan for Change document sets out how we will deal with legal and illegal migration.

On immigration specifically, the Prime Minister has been very clear that he believes there are legitimate concerns about immigration. Net migration is too high. The Government are determined to bring down historically high levels of legal migration and tackle the root causes behind it. By creating a fair and properly managed system, we will reduce net migration back down to sustainable levels.

On asylum, the Home Office has a legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, by providing appropriate support which usually includes accommodation. We engage with local authorities and key stakeholders as part of the process throughout the United Kingdom. We continue to identify a range of options to reduce the use of hotels, and it remains the Government’s ambition to end their use to ensure better use of public money.

On the point on education made by the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Loomba, our schools, colleges and universities provide a critical opportunity for people to learn and interact with those from different backgrounds, culturally, religiously and economically. These interactions can influence the cohesion dynamics of communities around schools, while shaping the worldview of emerging generations of students.

The noble Lord, Leigh, talked about extremism. The Home Secretary commissioned a rapid review—or “sprint”—in July, to establish a new approach to counter extremism, and the Home Office will be taking that work forward.

On housing, the Government are committed to kick-starting economic growth and getting Britain building and we will deliver 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. In the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed a settlement of over £5 billion for housing investment in 2025-26 to boost supply. We are acting quickly, but we will not be able to solve the housing crisis overnight. That is why the Government will publish a long-term housing strategy next year, which will set out our vision for a housing market that works for all.

The noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Bellingham, talked about homelessness levels, which are far too high. This can have a devastating impact on those affected. As announced in the Budget, funding for homelessness services is increasing next year by £233 million compared with this year. This increased spending will help to prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and help to prevent rough sleeping. This brings the total spend to nearly £1 billion in 2025-26.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about child abuse, the Church and John Smyth. I am horrified by the serious and violent child abuse perpetrated against children by the late John Smyth. My thoughts are with the victims of these awful crimes, and their families. The recent independent review by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of the allegations raised serious concerns about safeguarding and transparency. I can assure the House that the Government are committed to tackling all forms of abuse against children. We commit to write to the noble Baroness specifically on her numerous questions.

Noble Lords raised a very important point about Leicester and how we can learn lessons from there. The noble Lord, Lord Austin, is chairing an independent review of the unrest. The review panel will establish what happened, the factors that contributed to these events and what could be done differently in future. It is an opportunity to understand the different factors that played a role in the unrest and how the Government, the city of Leicester and other local authority areas can learn from it. It is not an exercise in apportioning blame to any communities, groups or organisations. We will hear the panel’s recommendations in the new year. The priority is to hear from those who know their city best: community organisations, elected representatives, official bodies and, most importantly, local people.

This Government recognise the need to strengthen and reinforce communities’ social cohesion and societal resilience, which impacts our ability to respond to change and uncertainty. For too long we have relied on the resilience, resourcefulness and goodwill of individuals and our amazing voluntary, charity and faith sectors. Successive Governments have left people to simply muddle along, without the commitment, strategies and policies necessary to support communities to shape their own lives.

Key parts of the social fabric that once tied us together—community centres, youth clubs, sports grounds, cultural venues—have reduced in number, leaving fewer opportunities for connection. Since 2001, the number of pubs has fallen by 26%, and the number of libraries has decreased by 28% since 2005. Today, fewer than half of Britons report being in a community group. This Government are committed to ensuring that communities across Britain are safe, united, and resilient against the threats which this country faces. Since the summer, we have been working across the country with councils, faith and community leaders and other key partners to talk to them directly about their challenges—I have been up and down the country doing this.

In conclusion, I would like to reassure the House that we are determined to take a long-term strategic approach to building social cohesion and community resilience. My department is leading cross-government efforts to transform this landscape over the years to come. I am talking not of quick fixes but of a commitment to working hand-in-hand with local government, communities, the voluntary sector, business, the charity sector and anyone of goodwill to address and overcome the root causes of division and discontent.

So let us not underestimate the power of unity. In times of uncertainty, we can choose to come together rather than drift apart. We can build a future where everyone feels valued, every voice is heard and every community is a source of strength. As the saying goes, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”. Let us build a society where, no matter what challenges we face, we face them together. I will finish with the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and his spiritual guidance—let us celebrate diversity. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, said in his speech, having united 200 countries, let us unite our country.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 51 I will also speak to Amendments 52 and 53 in this group, and I can be brief. The amendments are technical and, I hope, non-contentious, especially as my noble friend Lord True has added his name to them.

In Committee, when we were debating what is now Clause 22, I asked the Minister about the wording of the new subsections (3B) and (3C) in Section 28 of PPERA. This exempts small parties from the new requirement to make a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register. The threshold has been set at £500, which is in line with the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which recommended it be set by reference to assets or liabilities. The Bill added another reference point: assets plus liabilities. Being a very old-fashioned accountant, adding assets and liabilities together did not make any sense to me.

Since Committee, I have had very constructive exchanges with my noble friend the Minister and his officials, and the outcome of that is the three amendments in this group. In effect, the amendments say that the small-parties threshold is now expressed as £500 for either assets or liabilities. It does this by saying that a small political party has to meet an assets/liabilities condition, which is defined in proposed new subsection (3C), in Amendment 53, as being met only if both assets and liabilities do not exceed £500.

I am grateful to the Government for facilitating this small change to the Bill in the interests of good accounting practice. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to highlight the importance that provisions relating to electoral law are consistent with accounting practice. I know that the noble Baroness speaks with great experience and expertise in this area, having served as the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, as well as holding various senior positions in the accounting and finance area.

Specifically, these amendments focus on the registration of parties and the declaration of assets in relation to this process. It is crucial that the individuals and groups participating in elections are fully transparent in their practices—a point which these Benches have consistently raised during debates on amendments in previous stages of the Bill.

I hope the Minister can provide assurances that PPERA and other legislation governing political activities are already consistent with accounting practice, but I would also appreciate if she could use this opportunity to provide a more general update on how the evolving governance of accountancy and reporting will relate to political finances.

Finally, the Minister will be aware that the Financial Reporting Council is preparing to transition to become the audit, reporting and governance authority. Can she confirm whether the Government expect the new authority to play any role in overseeing finances relating to elections? I look forward to assurances from the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 51, 52 and 53 were tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, whom I thank for sharing her considerable expertise in and knowledge of this topic. Her constructive engagement with the Bill, particularly this clause, has been gratefully received in order to ensure that the law works effectively and as intended.

Asset declarations upon registration as a political party is an important matter. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in Committee, I say that this measure was recommended by the Electoral Commission in its 2013 and 2018 reports—A Regulatory Review of the UK’s Party and Election Finance Laws, and Digital Campaigning: Increasing Transparency for Voters. This led to the Committee on Standards in Public Life making the very same recommendation in its 2021 report Regulating Election Finance.

Clause 22 introduces provisions that will require new political parties to declare whether they have assets or liabilities in excess of £500 when they register with the Electoral Commission as a political party. Those with assets or liabilities in excess of £500 will be required to give a record of them as part of their registration. This will provide an increased level of transparency regarding a political party’s financial position at the point of registration. As part of the registration process, new political parties are not currently required to submit a declaration of the assets they own or liabilities they have. This information only becomes available in their first annual statement of accounts, published on the Electoral Commission’s website, which may be up to 18 months after registration.

The central policy aim of Clause 22 is to ensure greater transparency regarding the financial situation of new political parties. It is my and the Government’s view that my noble friend Lady Noakes’s technical amendments make this clearer and easier to understand for political parties registering with the Electoral Commission. These amendments will remove the requirement to add together the assets and liabilities, therefore bringing this clause into line with the more standard accounting practices that my noble friend has shared with us. I will read Hansard tomorrow and make sure that the noble Lord has a written answer to the questions that he asked. Therefore, I am pleased to say that the Government support this amendment, and I urge the noble Lords to do so too.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord True (Con)]

I thought it was. I thank those noble Lords for their constructive interest in and engagement with these measures. We have not always agreed—sometimes we have—but I have been grateful for their willingness to work with this side and our Bill team on these matters. As a result of this willingness to reach compromises around the House, the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House improved and strengthened.

On our Benches, I thank my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Hayward and Lady Noakes for their input, which has led to amendments that I also believe have enhanced the legislation. I am astonishingly grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott, who seems to step into every breach when I fall or, if you like, am not sufficient. She has such an impressive capacity to pick up the technical issues and work at pace, and I have been so grateful to her for her good humour and tireless work. It is much appreciated. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howe, who is not here, for stepping into the breach when I unfortunately had my lights punched out by a Covid headache and worse. I fell short then of a promise to all noble Lords that I would be here every hour of every debate. Of course, that could not be helped, but I assure your Lordships, as someone who likes to live up to his word, that it will be a source of annoyance when I look back on this.

Finally, we all want to go, but I cannot let anyone go—I know that people on all sides of the House understand this—without mentioning the extraordinary hard work of the Bill team and the policy officials behind the Bill, many of whom have worked for what may seem like half a lifetime to them on preparing it and putting it together. There are so many of them that it would be invidious to name them all, but many of your Lordships have had direct personal contact with them. They have been enormously professional, good humoured and patient—which you have to be if you work with me—and have lived up to the very highest standards of the UK Civil Service and the quality of public service that we all admire. So, my final thanks are to them.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I simply want to declare an interest in that, if this amendment is passed, I should be a beneficiary of it. When I first stood, as the noble Lord referred to, it was possible to use your commonly used name. On that occasion, I appeared as Andrew Stunell but, subsequently, I have had many a tussle with electoral returning officers. Fortunately, it is not an issue in this place but, I have to say, it is a common-sense amendment. I very much hope that the noble Lord has had some quiet discussions with the Minister and we are about to get a positive surprise.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. There is an anomaly. The Welsh Senedd has made this clear and made important changes so I am sure that we can get this simple amendment accepted, in the spirit of the previous group. The Minister—I am glad to see him back in his place; I wish him the very best of health—accepted the previous amendments, so I am sure that it will be straightforward for him to accept these ones. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, with respect to Amendments 31 to 33 and 38, under the current law, a person who is nominated as a candidate must give their full name. They may also provide a commonly used forename or surname, which must be different to any of the names already given, that they would like to have included on the ballot paper. My noble friend Lord Hayward has highlighted that this does not, for example, facilitate the use of a middle name where someone is commonly known by such a name.

My noble friend’s amendments would widen the scope of the current provisions concerning the use of commonly used names by candidates. They would allow a person to include on their nomination paper any name that they commonly use as a forename or surname. For example, under this amendment, a candidate would be able to choose to use their middle name if that is a commonly known name for them. A candidate may also use a commonly used forename and surname on the ballot paper.

When my noble friend raised this issue in Committee, the Minister, my noble friend Lord True, indicated that the suggestions had some merit. After further consideration, I am pleased to say that the Government consider that these are sensible changes and we are able to support my noble friend’s amendments.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, of course has a very interesting family history on this subject. I might perhaps suggest that his view is not quite correct. I think that if he was granted the right to vote, he would still have the right to resign from this House and stand as a candidate. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Thurso was once a Member of this House, then left this House, stood for election to Parliament and was elected as an MP. Then he lost his seat as an MP and came back to this House after a by-election of hereditary Peers. So the issue is not quite so simple.

We are talking about 800 people being added to an electoral register of 47 million, so I say to the Government that they should not have too much to fear from those 800 people being added, especially as quite a few of the 800 might vote for their party. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there are only a number of issues which we can really send back to the elected MPs. I personally think that issues such as the 6 million to 9 million people not on the register or incorrectly registered are much more important than 800 Peers and we may subject ourselves to some ridicule in the other place if we are seen to be prioritising our votes as Peers in a general election. If it happens and the Government accede, I will not be unhappy—I would quite like to have a say in electing somebody who will have a vote on budgetary matters and who might become the Prime Minister—but it is not an issue that I would personally want to press to a vote on this occasion, because I think there are more important priorities, particularly for this House at this stage of the Bill.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 42. First, I have huge admiration for my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and I recognise the history of campaigning on these issues. A lot of interesting points have been made this evening, but given the hour, I just want to say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for providing his context and family experience. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, says. This is a very interesting debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s position on this matter remains one of principle: namely, that it is not right for any one citizen to have the privilege of being represented twice. Enfranchising noble Lords to vote in UK parliamentary elections would give us two ways of being represented in Parliament: through our permanent membership here and ability to vote on legislation as we are today, and through our elected MP.

As we discussed in Committee, this is not the case for those currently sitting in the House of Commons. Once an election is called and Parliament is dissolved, an MP ceases to be an elected official and must seek re-election before returning to their place in the House of Commons. It is therefore right that they are able to vote in parliamentary elections, as not allowing them to do so would mean denying them a say in the democratic process.

We, however, do not cease to be Peers at the time of an election, and to allow us to vote would give us twice the representation of other citizens. In our roles in this Chamber, we are privileged to have an active role in the scrutiny of legislation and active participation in the democratic process of this country. To extend this participation further would undermine the principle that all citizens are equally represented in politics. I urge that this amendment be withdrawn.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am a little perplexed and confused. Many noble Lords will ask how that is different from my normal state, but the reason I am confused is this. I am looking at this from the perspective of a potential voter at a parliamentary election. Many noble Lords will probably argue later in Committee that the link between the MP and the constituency, particularly for voting, is strong and must be maintained. Most people, when they vote, look at the link of the candidates to the constituency they are standing in, not necessarily the local authority area, as those can be very big.

Let me give an example. In my home city of Sheffield, there are five and a half constituencies: the half is because one half of the constituency is in Barnsley and the other half is in Sheffield. Sheffield is quite large: it is 367.9 kilometres squared. If you live in the north of Sheffield, it is highly unlikely that you have a link with the south-west of Sheffield. You would not go shopping there; you probably do not work there; you probably do not go to the parks there. People living in south-west Sheffield probably do not have a link with the north of Sheffield. There are many constituencies across the country like that. Therefore, just having the name of a local authority does not necessarily mean that the candidate has a link with the constituency. I agree with the Minister on the importance of the security of candidates, but that has to be balanced with the need for information for the potential constituents and voters to be able to ascertain how local the candidate is and what link they have with a particular constituency.

There are 650 constituencies in the UK and 398 councils, as laid down in the Government’s amendment. That means that there are 252 more constituencies than councils. I am not going to become a geek and tell you what the square kilometres of those are, but the number is quite large. When the Minister responds, will he say whether there has been any evaluation done about the exact amount of extra security and safety that will be afforded to candidates if we move from constituency to council area? That is key. If not, we potentially lose the link between the candidates and the constituency in which they are standing. That is the main reason for my amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply, particularly his answer to that question about what evaluation has been done and what level of extra safety and security will be afforded if the Government’s amendment is implemented. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 121 relates to election candidates and the location which they state on their ballot paper and elsewhere. We on these Benches fully agree with the Minister’s comments about concerns held by Members of the other place. At present, there are two options available to candidates: they may state either their full address or the name of their constituency. Police forces and other authorities have often advised candidates that the first option can be unwise. Elected politicians and candidates are often subject to extensive abuse, so making their full address publicly available can increase the risk that such abuse will lead to violence or intimidation. For this reason, it is often appropriate for candidates to select the second option and instead list their constituency.

At times, this can be problematic, because the names of constituencies often do not accurately describe or reflect their location. It therefore makes sense that a candidate may instead list their local authority, but I am concerned by a few unintended consequences. In particular, there is a possibility that candidates will use this option to mask the fact that they live far away from the constituency. Many rural local authorities such as Cornwall, Shropshire and Northumberland are well above 1,000 square miles, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made in relation to Sheffield.

In these examples, a candidate may now list their local authority to obscure the fact that they live close to two hours away. Does the Minister accept that this amendment might have the unintended consequence of hindering transparency? In addition to this, I am concerned that some local authorities may not accurately describe their locations. Will the Minister consider expanding this to include local authority wards? I look forward to hearing his response and thoughts on these points.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I move and speak to Amendment 144E, which noble Lords will have noticed appears in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but operating on our normal lark and owl rota, this one falls to me at the owl end of the evening.

We have just been talking about some major issues around the Bill and our whole electoral system. Here, we are doing something that some might regard as a more traditional aspect of your Lordships’ House: the scrutiny, modest measures, cleaning and tidying and curing of small injustices. Amendment 144E amends Section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, addressing the situation where people have been placed by their local council into temporary housing outside the area for which they wish to stand for election.

We know that housing is now a huge issue. Many people are struggling to find housing, many people are being displaced and many local councils are struggling to find housing. The amendment comes from the case of a person who contacted our office who wants to stand in the forthcoming local elections and, through absolutely no fault of their own, under the current rules have been made ineligible to stand because they have been placed in temporary housing outside the local authority area.

It is obvious that this is not an isolated case. It is a factor of the current qualifications for standing in local elections. It is a case of instant disqualification. Someone may have been in an area for decades and be really embedded in that area, part of that community and have something to offer it but, because of the lack of housing—perhaps a failure of the local authority—they are suddenly unable to stand and to contribute. Of course, this can affect any candidate, regardless of their party or their social or economic situation. Perhaps they have been evicted because a landlord is selling the home they have been living in, perhaps they are fleeing domestic abuse. There is a whole host of other reasons why people might need temporary accommodation. They may have been planning stand in the forthcoming election for years, but the placement outside the borough scuppers all their hard work.

This is a small, modest amendment that would affect only a very small number of people, but it would address a basic injustice. I hope that I will get broad support across the Committee for the amendment and the Government might feel able to move modestly on it. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment, which would protect the rights of people in temporary housing to stand for election where the local authority provides temporary housing outside the local authority area. At any given point, close to 100,000 households live in temporary accommodation, according to quarterly statistics published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is right to draw attention to their right to participate in the democratic process, and I fully support the intention behind her amendment. We on these Benches fully support the points she made. Those who live in temporary accommodation are often most in need of their voice being heard, especially at local authority level. The suggestion that they would be prevented from standing for the relevant local authority due to the fact that their temporary accommodation is located outside the boundary is absurd. I hope the Minister will accept the case behind the amendment and work with the noble Baroness to find a solution to the problem.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. Although admirable in its intent, it introduces an unwelcome subjective element into the current objective criteria that specify qualifications for election as a member of a local authority. It presupposes that an individual, if moved by their local authority into temporary accommodation out of the area where they are standing for election, would otherwise satisfy the qualification criteria had they not been moved by their local authority.

The qualification criteria for local elected office must be beyond doubt. The amendment as drafted would remove the demonstration of consistent connection with an area that the current criteria rightly demand. The amendment would introduce a subjective qualification that the individual believes that they would otherwise categorically have remained eligible within the existing criteria, but this is not objective; it could be neither proved nor disproved. It would be unreasonable for the local electorate to be asked to consider voting for someone who may no longer have a strong connection with the local area nor any demonstrable proof that they would otherwise have maintained that contact.

There are other criteria for standing in local elections, and I think it is important that anyone in this situation looks at those—specifically, that they have been a local government elector for the last 12 months and that they have during the last 12 months preceding that day occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises in that area. If they work in that area then they can stand for local election, or if they have resided there for the whole of those 12 months before they were moved just before the election. Also, there is the case that they are a member of a parish or community council. There are other points for people to consider.

We have looked at this and will give it further thought, because it is an interesting concept that has not come up before. We do not make any promises, but we will look at it. At this moment, though, the Government cannot accept the amendment and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it. Maybe we can have further conversations.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, the bulk of which are new clauses to be inserted after Clause 2, relate to the administration of elections.

Amendment 88 deals with the nomination of candidates. At present, the Representation of the People Act states that the nomination papers must include the candidate’s full name. The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be that a candidate must provide a birth certificate to evidence this. Although I understand the noble Lord’s concerns that the process currently lacks this kind of specific identity check, there is currently a safeguard in the sense that candidates must be registered to vote, and identity checks can take place during the process of registering to vote. None the less, the noble Lord raises valid points on what checks take place on candidates, and I hope the Minister can provide assurances.

Amendment 89 also deals with nomination papers but focuses on the number of electors who must assent to the nomination. The noble Lord has the full support of these Benches for that amendment. Under the current system, regulated by the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, a candidate must collect the names of a proposer, a seconder and eight other electors. In total, this means that 10 electors must be found.

Amendment 91 also relates to nominations but instead would have the effect that a candidate might select their commonly used name. This seems an entirely sensible step, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this is already possible under current regulations. The Committee will no doubt appreciate that many candidates do not use their full name. For example, in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, ballot papers do not list the Prime Minister as Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Amendment 90 has a different focus and relates to the declaration of a result. Under this amendment, where a result is incorrectly declared in local elections and there is agreement between all candidates, a revised declaration may be made. I would be interested to hear what recent examples there have been of an incorrect declaration. Although it seems entirely right that there should be a means of challenging this, we should also consider whether there is a role for the returning officer in the process.

Finally, with Amendment 208 the noble Lord draws attention to the variation in criteria used for excluding candidates for certain elections. In its guidance to prospective candidates, the Electoral Commission warns that the full range of disqualifications is complex. There would certainly be merit in increasing the understanding of those exact disqualifications. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response to see whether he can give any assurances in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

97: Clause 7, page 9, line 13, after “communicate” insert “, or attempt to communicate”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to the secrecy of the ballot. Amendment 97 from my noble friend Lady Hayman would expand the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election. Amendment 100, meanwhile, expands the offence to include those who obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate at any time to any other person any information as to whether a person voting by post at a relevant election has spoilt their ballot.

The purpose of these amendments is to draw attention to the various ways that an individual could circumvent the secrecy of the ballot for nefarious purposes. I am sure the Minister would agree that legislation must cover each of the possible intrusions. Given that this is not the only legislation that deals with voting in private, I hope the Minister can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary and that this is already an offence.

Government Amendments 83, 99, 101 and 102, meanwhile, each make minor changes to inserted Section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. These all appear to be technical amendments which I have no intention of opposing, but I look forward to the Minister explaining their purpose in more detail.

Government Amendment 103 ensures that no criminal liability arises where information is sought from, or given by, a postal voter at an election for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll. Again, this amendment seems to be a technical clarification which has been rightly introduced.

Finally, Amendment 109 from the noble lord, Lord Hayward, allows for a more general debate on the secrecy of the ballot. It would mean that the Secretary of State could issue guidance on steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations, including debarring anyone accompanying the elector into the polling booth, unless on grounds of infirmity. This raises issues similar to those raised in earlier amendments from my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding how we can ensure that votes remain private. The noble Lord is right to table this amendment and to draw attention to further ways that this principle could be compromised. I hope the Minister can allay the House’s concerns ahead of Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made reference to the original secret ballot of the 19th century. To a large extent, what we have seen over the last 150 years is what should happen: a ballot should be secret, in that one person goes into the polling booth alone, marks their vote and then casts it in the ballot box. Unfortunately, because of a series of interventions, with the Electoral Commission and others denying who is interpreting the legislation in whichever way, this issue has been called into question. I am going to cite Tower Hamlets again, but I know that this problem is broader than that. Too regularly, presiding officers in polling stations are faced with a problem whereby people attempt to accompany somebody else into the polling booth, effectively to influence the casting of that ballot.

I can do no better than to quote research undertaken in 2018 by Democracy Volunteers, an organisation of lawyers who operate a system of reviewing the processes of elections, within Tower Hamlets and other similar locations. I make no apologies for quoting the research in full:

“QUESTION 9. Was there evidence of ‘family voting’ in the polling station? … In 58% of polling stations our observer teams identified so-called ‘family voting’. OSCE … describes ‘family voting’ as an ‘unacceptable practice’. It occurs where, generally, husband and wife vote together. It can be normalised and women, especially, are unable to choose for themselves who they wish to cast their votes for and/or this is actually done by another individual entirely. It is a breach of the secret ballot. We identified this in 58% of polling stations (74 separate occasions). As family voting, by definition, includes more than one person this means that we observed this 74 times in the 764 voters we observed. This means that over 19% of all the voters who we observed were either engaged in, or affected by, this practice.”


This is the key qualification:

“We would, however, like to add that the vast majority of cases of this were prevented, or attempts were made to prevent it. However, we believe that this constitutes an unacceptably high level of family voting in an advanced democracy and further steps should be taken to discourage and prevent it. However, this activity is generally not the fault of polling staff, in fact we commend the staff for being so active in their attempts to prevent it.”


As one of the observer teams said:

“Family voting is a definite concern in Tower Hamlets. At the best-run polling stations, the Presiding Officers kept an active watch for potential cases and took steps to prevent it happening. They took care to issue ballot papers to family members one at a time, and then direct them to polling booths in different parts of the room. With three members of polling staff, this meant that while two clerks checked the register and issued papers, the”


polling officer

“could remain vigilant for possible family voting or other problems. All the observed cases of family voting took place when the”

polling officer

“was absent or distracted, or their attention was elsewhere.”

There is no criticism here of the polling staff; they try to do their best. But I am afraid, as this report from Democracy Volunteers identifies, that this is a far too pervasive problem, and we need clear guidance. Most people believed that we had clear guidance for a century and a half, but because of varying interpretations, my amendment is an attempt to ensure that we move away from this practice and back to what was originally intended.

As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, identified, I have tried to allow for those people who need accompaniment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in a previous debate, there may be other people in similar circumstances who need assistance. Generally, the assistance will come from a polling officer, but there may be special reasons why somebody needs accompaniment from a member of the family. However, these should be virtually unique occasions, not—as the report from Democracy Volunteers identified—a pervasive problem. I therefore believe that my amendment is attempting to tackle a problem which is quite widespread and needs clarification, and that it is in the best interests of conducting elections across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as has been said, these amendments are to Clause 7, which concerns the important issue of the secrecy of the ballot for postal and proxy voters. The clause extends the requirements currently in place to protect the secrecy of voting for persons voting in polling stations to postal and proxy voting. These sensible change implementations are an important recommendation from the Pickles report.

First, in bringing forward government Amendments 98, 99 and 101 to 103, we have listened to feedback from political parties about the scope and effect of the provisions as drafted. Currently, the clause includes provisions that make it an offence for a person to obtain, attempt to obtain or communicate to anyone information about whether a postal voter has voted or about the candidate for whom they have voted. As drafted, this applies for the whole period that the elector is in possession of their postal ballot paper, which could be up to three weeks.

We now recognise that this approach goes beyond what is helpful to protect the voter and strays into unnecessarily criminalising not only legitimate political activity to engage electors in campaigns but important public information, such as opinion polling. The amendments would limit the scope of these provisions by providing for it to be an offence for a person to seek information about for whom a postal voter has voted at the time they are completing their ballot paper, or to communicate such information obtained at that time. Campaigners could therefore seek and communicate information that they obtain outside this period. This is in line with the protection for voters in polling stations, who are protected when they are in that polling station.

The amendments would also remove the restriction on asking whether a postal voter has voted so that campaigners can ask a postal voter whether they have voted, to encourage them to do so. Further, under the amendments, the offence would not apply to opinion-polling activity asking how a postal voter has voted, or intends to vote, to avoid criminalising opinion pollsters. The amendments seek to address the unintended consequences that the provisions, as they stand, would have. They would narrow the scope of the provisions so that they do not prevent legitimate campaigning by political parties and candidates outside the time when a person completes their postal ballot paper or legitimate opinion polling at any time.

I reassure noble Lords that the measures will improve the integrity of the postal vote process by reducing the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process and coerce other voters. They will give greater confidence in the integrity of absent voting; I therefore urge the Committee to accept these amendments.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness seek to provide that attempting to communicate information about a person’s postal vote as well as actually communicating the information is covered in the secrecy offence. Also, the amendments seek to include in the offence obtaining or attempting to obtain information or communicating information about whether a person voting by postal vote has spoilt their ballot. The Government consider that these amendments are unnecessary, as I have explained. The amendments that the Government have tabled seek to bring the protection for postal voters into line with that for those voting in polling stations.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would mean that there would be inconsistency in the requirements for voters in polling stations and postal voters, which would not favour them. I note that, currently, it is an offence for a person to obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate information as to the candidate for whom a voter has voted in a polling station, and we are applying this to postal voters.

Spoilt ballot papers are not included in the existing provisions, which relate to the time when a voter is casting their vote. It is for the returning officer to decide if a vote has been spoilt and cannot be counted. That cannot be done before it is cast. To try to include such a provision could lead to uncertainty about the scope of the offence and the role of the statutory independent returning officer in making any such determination. The Government therefore cannot accept these amendments.

I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Hayward, which would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance on the steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations. I reassure noble Lords that the Government take this and the concerns that have been raised very seriously. The Government’s view is that the secrecy of the ballot is fundamental to the ability of voters to cast their vote freely, without undue pressure to vote in a certain way. The Government fully endorse the principle that someone’s vote must be personal and secret, and that no elector should ever be subject to intimidation or coercion when voting. There are already provisions in place in electoral law to ensure the secrecy of voting in polling stations. The current legislation requires that voters should not be accompanied by another person at a polling booth except in specific circumstances, such as being a child of a voter, a formal companion or a member of staff.

Returning officers and their staff in polling stations are responsible for making sure that these requirements are upheld. In this way, they are supported by the Electoral Commission, which issues guidance to returning officers and polling station staff to help them to undertake their duties.

I note that 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. Therefore, I do not consider that it is the role of government to issue such guidance as provided for in the amendment. 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, and I reassure the noble Lord and the rest of the House that we will report back on this matter.

For these reasons, I hope that the amendments from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not be pressed.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Scriven, for their contributions. I want to say how impeccable the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was in reading the Ballot Act 1872 in the space of this debate, and I congratulate him on his reading skills. In doing so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 97 withdrawn.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

30A: Clause 20, page 30, line 23, at end insert—
“(4) Within 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on the application of this section in—(a) England;(b) Wales;(c) Scotland;(d) Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the application of Clause 20 in devolved administrations.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Amendment 30A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury. The intention of the sole amendment in this group is to probe the application of Clause 20 in devolved Administrations. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that expenses incurred under Section 75 by a third party do not have to be paid by the election agent. This is achieved primarily through amendments to Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Ministers have previously explained that this means that they are able to both incur and pay for authorised expenses under Section 75, rather than the expenses being paid through the agent of the candidate they are promoting. As a result, there will be greater clarity to third parties who have been authorised by a candidate or agent to promote them. I am sure the whole House will agree that greater clarity is important, especially considering the complexity of electoral law, including the system of election expenses. However, I should be grateful if the Minister explained in what different ways this will affect elections in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom.

The development of separate legislatures since the 1990s has seen the gradual transfer of powers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This has included powers relating to the holding of elections, which has also meant that, over time, there have been disparities in the way that elections take place across the four nations. Most strikingly, the voting system differs, which in turn has created broad differences in how each legislature is constituted, but the variations go far beyond the surface.

There are many more subtle differences at a granular level, but it is also worth mentioning that the differences between Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England originated before even the first devolution settlements. This is evident from even a brief examination of Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which is amended by this clause. This section, which deals with the narrow matter of prohibition of expenses not authorised by an election agent, includes technical references to how this should not mistakenly restrict certain publications and so on. Subsection (1ZZA) clarifies that this includes Sianel Pedwar Cymru, more commonly known as S4C, as well as the British Broadcasting Corporation, more commonly known as the BBC. Ultimately, this illustrates that devolution has created huge complexities across the statute book and, on the sensitive issue of elections, the Government must be considerate of that.

On our previous day in Committee, a pertinent point was raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who explained to the House that, out of more than 350 legislative consent Motions, consent had been denied just 13 times. Given that this Bill is subject to one of those 13 denials, the House and indeed the Government should be especially considerate of how the remaining clauses could inadvertently have consequences for the devolved nations. As my noble friend also pointed out, the Minister previously expressed his regret at the decision to withhold consent; this disagreement should also be kept in mind when considering the implications of different clauses of the Bill in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to explain to the Committee what, if any, consequences she foresees of Clause 20 for the devolved nations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the integrity of elections, ensuring that they remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The UK Government undertook extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in preparing the policy and drafting the legislation. For a number of measures that are within devolved competence, the UK Government considered that a co-ordinated UK-wide approach would have been beneficial by ensuring consistency and operability for electoral administrators and those regulated by electoral law, and strengthening protection for electors and relevant political actors. It is therefore regrettable that, while the Government sought legislative consent for these measures, the Scottish Parliament has not granted such consent and the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd does not grant legislative consent to these measures.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement on the application of Clause 20 in devolved Administrations. This measure will apply only to candidates at reserved elections, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures in respect of elections within their legislative competence. For clarity and reference, I remind noble Lords that subsections (2) to (7) of Clause 18 make equivalent amendments in respect of other campaigners, including political parties.

We are respecting the request of the devolved Governments by limiting this power in application only to elections within the UK Government’s legislative competence. Clause 25 is necessary because it is important that new categories of campaigner can be added to the list if necessary. This is because the introduction of the restriction on third-party expenditure in Clause 24 means that any category of campaigner not on the list will be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign by not being able to spend more than £700.

The relevant provisions will apply only to matters of reserved or excepted elections, and the Bill makes an important clarification, so that candidates and their agents can have full confidence about their legal responsibilities and do not need to fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they had no knowledge. The Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures within their legislative competence.

Finally, I will reiterate that the Electoral Commission will be responsible for preparing guidance on notional expenditure which will support those seeking to contest elections and enter public life throughout the whole of the UK. With that said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. Just to reiterate, we will continue to have discussions around devolution, as it is affected by many parts of this Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 30A withdrawn.

Elections Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

31B: Clause 22, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
“(7B) Subsection (7A) does not apply to a party registered in the Great Britain register in pursuance of a declaration falling within subsection (2)(d) (a minor party).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the application of this Clause to minor parties.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 31B, 32 and 32A in this group in the names of my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lord Collins of Highbury. Amendments 31B and 32 relate to Clause 22, which prohibits an entity registering as both a political party and a third party, which would allow them to access multiple spending limits. I cannot see any reason to oppose this, which would remove a loophole from the level playing field—those words which have been so often mentioned—and maintain the integrity of the existing system.

In the debate on this clause in the other House, a Minister explained that this change was necessary after an entity registered as both during the 2019 general election, therefore abusing the system. Can the Minister confirm which party this was?

Specifically, Amendment 31B intends to probe the application of this clause to minor parties. While we can assume that major political parties, which tend to have governance units, will be aware of these new changes and will be very unlikely to register in both classifications, we should consider whether the same can be said for minor parties. This brings me to Amendment 32, which is intended to probe how the Government will inform third parties of the impact of this section. On the first day in Committee my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock touched on the importance of consultation, and I ask the Minister what consultation there has been on informing third parties of the impact of this section. In particular, I ask about impact assessments on this section. Consultation is particularly important for this Bill. Many of the groups which fall within the definition of third parties can be considered minor organisations which also may not have the necessary structures.

Amendment 32A touches on a similar subject of informing involved parties but relates instead to Clause 23. This clause deals with transitional provision for groups which appear on both registers and would permit them to spend only in one capacity.

I understand that the Minister has been very kind and has had discussions on these matters with my noble friends, but I really hope he can confirm what plans the Government have to involve, engage and inform the relevant parties, and we would really welcome further discussion on this matter. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I will follow up on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It is quite puzzling to see how extensive a problem it could be to have entities registered as both political parties and third parties. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, did his review of the legislation governing third-party campaigning, he said specifically that he did not see this as a significant problem.

I would like to ask the Minister when he comes to reply whether that situation has changed because of the increase in digital campaigning and therefore ask how this would be monitored and enforced. Whose responsibility would it be? Presumably it would be the Electoral Commission’s, but would it require a new set of digital enforcement measures that it has not had previously?

The other issue that I would like to probe is what engagement there will be with entities that might fall into this category. It is not at all clear to me from the Bill where this proposal has come from and how it is envisaged it will work. I think there is considerable concern among non-party campaigners out there which are small entities that they might fall foul of this when not doing anything intentionally wrong. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us the extent of the problem that has led to this having to be put into primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also tabled an amendment seeking to probe the application of Clause 22 to minor parties. I am grateful to him for raising the topic—the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, also raised that point. We are keen to close any loophole and prevent registered parties or campaigners taking advantage of multiple spending limits. Registered minor parties are indeed registered parties, therefore it is right in principle that this clause applies to them. However, again, I am happy to consider this point further and will ask my officials to further test this particular point raised in the debate. With that in mind I urge that these amendments be withdrawn.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response. There were some very good contributions from noble Lords; in particular I welcome the point the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made on monitoring, enforcing and digital campaigning with regard to this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly probed the whole aspect of communication with the Secretary of State in particular and being a third party as well as a political party.

When I asked the Minister a question, I did not want to cause a debate in the Chamber—it was done with good intentions. We look forward to working further with the Minister and I hope that on Sunday, when he is at his allotment, after he has read the Sunday Times, he can reflect on how he will further involve, engage and inform relevant parties. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 31B withdrawn.