Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Debate between Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this and I see some logic in some of the provisions within the regulations. However, paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum raised my eyebrows. It asks:
“What is the approach to monitoring and reviewing this legislation?”
It then states that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation; the majority of provisions are already in operation without problems for combined authorities”.
Tell that to people who have sat on the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee. They would tell you that things were not working properly. It got to such a point that the dysfunctionality of that combined authority and the poor or lack of oversight of what was happening led to the Tees Valley Review, which was produced by an independent panel and made some quite interesting observations on what was happening there. The report said that:
“The former monitoring officer advised TVCA oversight and Scrutiny Committee they had no remit to scrutinise”
South Tees Development Corporation decisions. That was quite interesting because Tees Valley Combined Authority had given over £200 million-worth of loans to the South Tees Development Corporation and therefore there was a direct link to why overview and scrutiny needed to take place.
In the report, previous members of the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s overview and scrutiny committee
“expressed frustration at the lack of information provided which they felt undermined their ability to scrutinise the activity of STDC and TWL”—
Teesworks Limited—which is now a privately owned company, 90%-owned by the private sector. Two businessmen with a 90% stake are making super profits on the back of £500 million-worth of public sector investment and again, the overview and scrutiny committee has not been able to scrutinise most of that money.
Recommendations 6 and 7 of the Tees Valley Review report relate directly to overview and scrutiny and show why it was not working, what the deficiencies are and how things need to be improved. The Minister pointed out that new guidance is coming forward, but if the Government are not going to monitor actively the legislation, how will they know whether another Tees Valley Combined Authority issue could happen or is happening? What mechanisms do the Government have in place to ensure that this kind of dysfunctionality can never happen at a combined authority again? It is an important question that the Minister needs to answer, especially since this new legislation will not be monitored. If arrangements are not in place centrally to determine whether there is this kind of dysfunctionality, what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that this could not happen again in any of the existing combined authorities or the new combined county authorities?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will wait for the Minister to reply to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Scriven. In her introduction, she talked about the review that is taking place but not the timescale. It would help the House to know when the Government expect the response, which we all expect, to be produced.
I understand that this instrument maintains parity between combined authorities and combined county authorities and that it is necessary. However, I was concerned to read in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Notes that
“several of the combined authorities with whom the draft legislation was discussed asked if provision could be included enabling committees to meet virtually or to reduce the quoracy requirement for the transaction of committee business from its current level of two thirds of committee members”.
I am very pleased that the Government concluded
“that face-to-face attendance of meetings”
of overview and scrutiny, and of audit, is important. It is and, having worked on the levelling-up Bill and moved amendments in relation to overview and scrutiny, and audit, I think that the Government’s position is correct.
It is very easy for those who are running overview and scrutiny, and audit, to want to reduce the workload and so suggest “Can we meet virtually?”—that means that, rather than all the conversations that take place before or after a meeting, people are only discussing these matters online—and, “Can committees have a lower turnout/attendance rate?” When we moved these matters in previous legislation, the figure of two-thirds mattered because overview and scrutiny, and audit, must be taken very seriously. I hope that the Government understand this.
We will see when we get the report that the Government are due to present to your Lordships’ House, but, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, my eyes lit upon the words at paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Notes saying that:
“The Government has no plans actively to monitor this legislation”.
I think that this means relating only to whether people take up the option of allowances—it may mean that; however, it may mean something else. I hope that the Government do not mean the wider definition of “legislation”, because all the evidence suggests that the Government need to keep a very close eye on overview and scrutiny and audit, and how it is being carried out.
Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I wish to add my support to the comments that he made about the consolidation of election law. We are way behind the curve—the Minister is nodding—and we really need to look at the consolidation of electoral law.
I turn to this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for laying out the reasons behind it and its intention. Everybody wishes to reduce or completely stop the use of fraud in postal votes and stop people’s votes being stolen by others in our democracy. Some provisions in the regulations will help with that, such as those on political actors handling postal votes. However, I believe the main thrust of these regulations, which is about the handing in of postal votes at the polling station or electoral offices, is doomed to failure because it is impractical. I shall explain why and look forward to an answer.
Let us assume that I am a fraudster and I understand electoral law. I go out and harvest postal votes. I will know not to hand them in to the polling station—I will do it before election day—or to the electoral office. I will put them in a Royal Mail box. Will this statutory instrument achieve its number one aim of reducing electoral fraud? Practically, it can be circumvented just by putting the votes into a Royal Mail box. Let me show the Committee the stupidity of this through my city of Sheffield. I could go to the town hall, where within a couple of metres of the post box for the electoral office—just around the corner, probably 60 metres—there are two Royal Mail boxes. I would put my 100, 50 or 30 harvested postal votes into the Royal Mail box because why I got them or why I am handing them in will not be checked. It is completely outside the law. This will not stop the harvesting of postal votes and fraudulent people getting them back into the system.
It is also impractical for another reason. In the example I have just given in Sheffield, let us say that I am an upright citizen who believes in saving the taxpayer money. I decide to put in my one postal vote, which is my mother’s, but because I do it after the electoral office is closed my mother’s vote will not be counted, even though the 50 that have just been put into the post box around the corner by the harvester will be valid. I do not think that those who have drafted this statutory instrument understand the logistics of elections. What are the Minister’s and the Government’s views on that differential?
While I support the reduction of postal vote fraud, for those reasons I believe these regulations are flawed and impractical and will not have the desired effect. I look forward to hearing the answers from the Minister, which may alleviate my concerns, but I think that the regulations will not stop vote harvesters and that the votes of some people who genuinely cannot get to the polling station on the day or to an electoral office between nine and five will be invalid, simply because of the difference of a couple of metres in where somebody decides to hand in their postal ballot.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall add one further issue that concerns me, partly from what the Minister said in his introduction and partly from my reading of the instrument. It relates to the definition of “political campaigner”. This appears several times in the statutory instrument. Is a person who is a friend of an independent candidate a political campaigner? The regulations permit an individual to hand in up to five postal votes of other voters at a polling station, but a political campaigner cannot handle a postal vote. Therefore, the definition of a “political campaigner” matters. Does it include a friend of a candidate who is independent of any political party? Is that person a political campaigner?