Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Up and down the country, communities are struggling with the Tories’ mortgage crisis and the cost of living crisis. Those hit hardest often live in communities that were promised levelling-up funding, yet the Government sit on £1 billion of promised levelling-up fund money—money that could make a difference to those who need it most. Where on earth is it? Will the Government commit today to starting a process for the allocation of it?

[Dehenna Davison]

I find myself a little confused, because we got a lot of criticism from the Opposition about round 2 of the levelling-up fund. They wanted us to get round 3 right, and we are taking the time to ensure that we get round 3 allocations right. We will, in due course, announce details on how we will allocate that money, which will change people’s lives.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Alex Norris Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to close this challenging but important debate on behalf of the Opposition. The debate has covered Britain’s place in the world, freedom of speech, human rights, genocide and a whole range of other important topics.

At the heart of the debate lies a central question: does the Bill balance legitimate, strongly held and well-meant desires to challenge behaviours overseas on principled grounds against important protections for particular nations or regions in the face of disproportionate treatment? I am afraid the answer is no.

We believe there should be legislation to frame boycott and divestment-type activities—legislation that allows communities to decide where their money goes—in response to human rights or genocide concern, while ensuring such decisions are made equitably and consistently so that the world’s only Jewish state, for example, is not singled out and targeted. This is consistent with our long-held stance against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.

Colleagues can have confidence that we believe in such framing legislation, because the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I tabled such amendments to the Procurement Bill in Committee, some months ago, and on Report. The amendments were rejected by the Government, but the Bill tabled in their stead, the Bill before us, is considerably worse than the option we offered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) called the Bill a “dog’s dinner.” He is generally not a man to disappoint, but his sentiment was one of disappointment, which was echoed in the remarkable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke of the frustration of those, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who want to see legislation that the House can unite behind. We do not have that currently.

There has been a range of other excellent contributions. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), referenced clause 3(7), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). This subsection breaks the distinction between the state of Israel and the occupied territories, which is a significant change in Government policy, and it asks significant questions about our compliance with UN resolutions. The Minister must account for that change of policy and assuage some of those concerns in her summing up.

The right hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that foreign policy matters of this nature are not for local decision makers. Well, we do not think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a very strong argument about how it has worked and been effective in his community in the past. In a bolder argument, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) rightly said that it is our communities’ money. I, like many colleagues, am a member of the local government pension scheme—that is our money; and I am a council tax payer—that is our money. It is not unreasonable that we might want to have a say in how it is spent.

[Nadia Whittome]

This Bill is anti-democratic and anti-human rights. It frustrates peace efforts in the middle east and it is an obstacle to social justice everywhere. As such, it has been condemned by a huge range of civil society organisations, including trade unions, charities and faith organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree with them and with me that for those reasons the Bill must not receive a Second Reading?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, I think that what has been striking is that colleagues who come at this from very different places and parties have reached that conclusion of the inadequacy of this legislation. I hope the Government will reflect on that. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked what our alternative was. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a powerful contribution, but I slightly challenge his suggestion that we were saying that we should rip this up in an unspecified way. That is not the point we are making. We are saying that we tabled an amendment to the Procurement Bill that we think is better. If the Government think it is technically inadequate, we would be happy to work with them to improve it. What we do know is that it is much better than what is before us today.

My hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made important points about what this Bill does to the devolved regional and national settlements—it challenges and presses them greatly. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made powerful anti-BDS cases. I hope the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have taken on that assuages some concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford is my friend and we should always be honest with our friends, so let me say that he has done peerless work in this place on tackling the persecution of Christians abroad and he should have real concerns about how this legislation would fetter such activities in the future.

I will cover some more of the contributions as I get through the rest of my points, but certain concerns must be addressed by the Minister in her closing remarks. First, which of the two possible readings of clause 1 do the Government intend? Does the “territorial consideration” provision mean that not wishing to procure from Xinjiang is unacceptable but that not wishing to procure from the entire nation of China would be acceptable? Or does it mean that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers? How, at this stage, can it be satisfactory that there is ambiguity? As we have heard, this is legislation that will head straight to the courts. Secondly, to accept clause 3 is to exalt the Secretary of State ahead of any other public representative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. It is to set aside the mandates of the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Greater Manchester or of the leaders of councils in favour of the Secretary of State. It is to give that person, whoever they may be, sole arbitration of human rights abuses, of genocide. That should give all of us pause, but it is worsened by clause 4, the gagging clause, which my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

We heard a powerful and compelling contribution from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, about pernicious political thinking behind this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has happened multiple times? We are talking about a smackdown on democracy. We had the so-called “gagging Bill”, which was about gagging charities and became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014; in 2016, we had the wrapping up of trade unions in even more red tape; and, recently, we have had more attacks on trade unions and the right to protest. Are the Government not crushing dissent on the part of any organisation or body that wants to challenge them?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend almost reads to the end of my paragraph, so I will address that point presently. The point on gagging clauses was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The Bill means that not only does the judgment of the Secretary of State supersede any and all local leaders, but the Government seek to ensure that those leaders are not even allowed to talk about their desire to challenge human rights abuses or not to consume settlement goods. The Government are taking away not only the right to act, but the ability to speak. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) says, that is consistent with a legislative programme designed to whittle away at the civic space, with the Trade Union Act 2016, the 2014 Act, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. What we have in front of us is an unacceptable fetter on free expression.

Separately, but no less importantly, the Bill will, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, have consequences for billions of pounds in local government pension funds. Any hard deadline that is imposed on them to change their operations in accordance with new law could be deeply destabilising, and the Minister ought to talk about how much she has looked into that impact. We know that at the moment a pension fund makes a divestment decision on a financial ground that relates to territories named in the Bill, that decision will be challenged in the court as a moral judgment. That will bind up our pension funds in court case after court case.

Let me turn to an issue that has had little airing in the debate so far and will have a lot more to run. Through clause 7, the Bill permits extraordinary powers to compel information—powers that demolish long-held legal privileges. It is not proportionate to hand to the Secretary of State even stronger powers to compel information from public bodies than the security services have. Surely the Government see the unsustainability of that position. As detailed by Labour and other colleagues, these are weighty concerns that make the Bill unacceptable in its current form.

But there is an alternative, as covered in our reasoned amendment. Our country has a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two to the creation of the United Nations and the role that we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and inalienable rights of all human beings. It is vital that procurement decisions made in respect of such rights are then applied across the board to prevent unethical actions against specific states and to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact. That could be readily achieved by requiring public bodies to produce a document that sets out their policy on procurement and human rights, and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. That would ensure consistency in how contracting authorities decide on such matters.

What would that suggestion mean in practice? The practical effect would be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If that same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side. But if a public body acts only against a particular state—let us say the world’s only Jewish state—while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, such actions would be illegal. We offer this workable solution to the Government and I hope the Minister picks it up. If colleagues do not hear that in the Minister’s response, I encourage them to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Co-operatives and Alternative Businesses: Local Authority Support

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Labour and Co-op Member of Parliament and because my wife is the assistant general secretary of the Co-operative party.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for securing this debate and for her leadership of it. She started by saying that there is a great need and enthusiasm in this country to move to more local models and away from top-down planning to local delivery. That was really on the money, as was her point about the huge input that the co-op sector already makes to our economy. She also referred to the frankly unrealised potential of the sector, which I will talk about shortly. However, as the theme of the debate is the role of local authorities, I thought it was wonderful that she pulled out examples from across Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Birmingham and her borough of Hackney where local, regional and sub-regional leaders are taking ownership and putting co-ops at the heart of their local economy and their local economic development.

I believe, and this came through in what my hon. Friend said, that we are at a co-op moment. We are showing that leadership is local and developing, but that needs to be matched—perhaps this is a theme of today’s debate—with a national commitment.

My hon. Friend was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who, in my head, is synonymous with her 100-plus appearances for Wales in squash, as well as with the co-operative movement in Wales. She listed a number of people who have been the backbone of that movement, but she ought to have her place in that pantheon. I knew that she would not disappoint us and would talk about the Marcora law, which is particularly germane to today’s debate.

Whether a Member is from the north-east, like the Minister, from the east midlands, like me, or from south Wales, like my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), a common theme is that, in recent decades, we have felt the huge loss of businesses, industries or enterprises that are at the heart of our community, and we know the absolute hole that that creates. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath, building on the Italian example, suggested a way that we can perhaps fill that hole and stop that happening. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on that. Whether she is addressing the current Government or a future one, my hon. Friend will continue to press that case hard. In giving the example of Cwmpas, she made a case—this was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley—about the impact of support and input at a national level to help different models of enterprise to develop, and that that can be highly effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley picked up on that theme by talking about the work of the Welsh Government and Cwmpas. However, what I also took from what she said is that the co-operative economy and co-ops’ place in the economy are as a deliverer of really important social programmes. She mentioned net zero and energy, as well as the cost of living and tackling poverty. I believe that co-ops are at the root of tackling those challenges, which is why I am a Co-operative Member, and that local authorities should act as a facilitator. I associate myself with everything that she said about Tyrone O’Sullivan. I know that a lot of pain has been felt by Welsh colleagues at his passing. For all the reasons she mentioned, his place is very much in a co-op debate, and I am glad we have had the chance to recognise that.

I will make a couple of points of my own. Efforts to support the growth of co-ops and alternative businesses are vital, because we know the difference that those business forms can make. Co-operatives, for example, put economic power in the hands of local people, and ensure that the benefits of economic growth are felt by those who help to create it. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on that, because I think that is what we are talking about with levelling up. I know that, perhaps politically, the Minister is not co-operative, but I suspect that she is by instinct. I am interested to hear her views.

Co-ops are grounded in shared values that put communities, members and workers together in the driving seat of a fairer, more ethical way of doing business, where issues such as paying a fair share of tax and protecting our natural environment are at the core of how things are done. Co-operatives are good not just for those who depend on them, but for business. They are shown to be more resilient. Co-ops are twice as likely to survive the first five years of trading than other start-ups. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, they are more ambitious, with 61% expressing a desire to grow, as opposed to 53% of businesses more generally. Where workers and members of the co-operative have a true stake and say in the success of business and, crucially, have a share in the rewards, they are more productive.

So co-ops are resilient, ambitious and productive—qualities that we so badly need in our economy, especially in these uncertain times, and also to smooth out and avoid uncertain times in future. As colleagues have said, this is already working, with 7,000 co-operatives across the country turning over around £40 billion a year. We believe that the sector can grow and that its benefits can be felt more widely by more people.

This is about a change of focus from economic growth built around low-paid insecure work that does not ride out economic uncertainty well and is concentrated in certain regions of the country. Instead, we are talking about an “everyone in” approach, providing grassroots growth, created everywhere, by everyone, for everyone, but that will not happen by chance. Colleagues have used good examples of where it has worked well. At the root of that, there has been a degree of national, regional, sub-regional or local leadership, and it requires that proactivity. I hope we will hear some of that in the Minister’s response.

For our part, we as the Opposition have an important ambition, shared with the Co-operative party, to double the size of the co-operative sector, to help build that sustainable growth. Colleagues will also have seen that our local power plan was announced by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday. Co-operation lies at the heart of that plan, which will put money and power—literally and figuratively—into people’s hands. We believe that when more people have a say and a stake, and greater ownership of the issues and decisions that matter to them, the balance of economic power shifts back in favour of people and communities—and my goodness, do we need some of that!

We have heard that local authorities and local government are taking a lead across the country. We have also heard from colleagues that local elections saw a record number of Labour and Co-op councillors elected. There are more than 1,500 such representatives across 80% of local authorities, so the case is being made at a local level more and more. However, we need to see that matched at a national level. When the Minister makes her contribution, I will be interested to hear what work her Department is undertaking, not just to support co-ops and alternative businesses in the here and now, but going forward, in terms of its ambition and belief for the sector. On levelling up, if there is anything the Minister could deliver in her role, it would be to help those sub-regional bodies—perhaps combined authorities and mayors—to deliver ownership hubs. There is clearly enthusiasm to do that.

What more help does the Minister envisage giving local authorities to ensure that they can play their role? There has been a pattern over the past decade or more of not prioritising alternative models. It has been the same old models delivering the same old outcomes. As a result, we have pent-up potential—we really need to realise that—and that plays out in Government focus and in a policy and regulatory framework that often inhibits the development of alternative models.

I hope that the Minister has heard, in contributions from colleagues and me, about the ambition and the potential, and the difference that it would make to the UK economy to unleash co-ops. We see the local leadership of this, and we now need to see some national leadership to match it.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition in this debate.

Let me start by bringing us back to first principles. The Mayor of Teesside himself has requested a National Audit Office investigation into the Teesworks joint venture. That is backed by the Chairs of three parliamentary Select Committees. The Opposition, as hon. Members have heard, support it. The media support it. The only people who disagree with this are Ministers on the Treasury Bench and their Back Benchers. The purpose of the motion and the debate is to establish why the Government have taken the eccentric course of rejecting an NAO-led review. Is there a sound public policy reason or is it a partisan decision?

My colleagues have made very strong cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) set out in significant detail the pain the north-east has felt over 30 years of austerity; I would have thought that Conservative Members would have reflected on that, but they did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reflected on the region’s potential, which makes that pain doubly saddening. My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) raised a range of very serious questions that simply must be addressed by a review that everybody can have confidence in.

I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about journalism and the courage of those various journalists who have taken this issue on. Despite all the criticism they have had from the players involved, they have stood up, done their job and shone a light on the issue, and we are having this debate today in part because of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) set out an extraordinary, deep and detailed case, worth listening to by those colleagues who have sought to shout him down, both today and previously. He has shown incredible courage, knowing what is right for his constituents and doing what is right for his community when it would have been easier for him not to. There will have been days when he got out of bed, knowing the barrage that he was going to face, and it would have been easier not to, but he has too much courage to do that, and I salute that.

I turn to colleagues on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said it was inconvenient that we were bringing this motion today. I understand that, but I gently say that it is for the Opposition to ask the questions and for the Government to answer them—they cannot ask the questions as well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) hit the nail on the head when she said that the Mayor has asked for this audit. It is not so unreasonable that we should ask for such an intervention when the Mayor himself has done so.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) asked, as did the Minister in his opening speech: why are we departing from established practice? This is the first time such a thing has happened. We have never had such an incident involving an elected Mayor or a mayoral development corporation. Of course whatever we do will be a new and novel approach, because we have never done it before. Falling back on false equivalence simply does not work.

I turn now to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who made a bombshell contribution to this debate when he made it clear that he was basing his decision today on the discussions he has had with civil servants and the advice they were able to give him as a Back Bencher—advice that he knows we have not had any access to. At the root of the motion is the point that we need to know the information that is clearly available to some but not to others.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that Ministers have not been advised by the civil service that the threshold has been met. That is a matter of public record. It is in the letter the Secretary of State sent to Ben Houchen at the end of last month and it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box during his opening remarks. Ministers have been advised by the civil service that no such threshold for a best-value investigation has been met. That is not our view; it is the civil service’s view.

[Alex Norris]

I chirped during the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier contribution to ask him how he knew. I took from that—if I am wrong, the record will show otherwise—that he had had those conversations. Frankly, I think that that muddle is at the root of the issue.

Of course, this issue cannot be decoupled from the Government’s supposed commitment to levelling up the country—a commitment on which, as has become increasingly clear over the past 18 months, the Government cannot and will not deliver. We have seen a levelling-up White Paper which talks more about a Medici-style renaissance that a real commitment to our communities; a bodged levelling-up fund that locked deprived areas out from getting the money that they need; and much-heralded levelling-up directors quietly canned even though they were supposed to champion the revitalisation of our nations and regions. What a waste. What a waste of the pent-up potential of our regions, towns and cities which is waiting to be unleashed if only the Government were serious about delivering on their promise. Once again from this Department, it is all press releases, no delivery.

Teesside was supposed to be the flagship, the proof of concept, which makes the concerns expressed today all the more crucial. If this is what levelling up is, who benefits from it? Who is it for? The questions keep mounting up, as colleagues have said. Reports in the media outline how millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have supported a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake despite seemingly never having entered a competitive process, and how those developers have taken significant dividends, outsizing their investment in the project. People rightly wonder how that has happened, who sanctioned it, whether value for money has been delivered, whether these concerns are legitimate, and if so, why has it taken dogged reporting on the issue, and colleagues in this place, for them to come to light?

Those are crucial questions that require answers, but rather than call in the National Audit Office, as the Mayor himself asked for, the Secretary of State has chosen to set up his own review, set the terms of that review and appoint the panel himself. We are now in the ridiculous situation where a flagship Government project that is facing serious allegations of failures in accountability is subject to a review set up and appointed by the Government themselves, and we are told that that will give the public the reassurance that they need. How can the Secretary of State expect the public to have confidence in that process? It is no wonder he did not come today and stand up for it, and instead sent the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), whom I hold in high regard, into an impossible situation.

Let us face it: the Government are on their way to court for a statutory review that they themselves set up, because they are doing anything they can to avoid being candid in it. Now, they ask us to trust them and put our confidence in a review that has not even those safeguards and powers, and they are surprised when we, the media and the public say that that is simply not good enough. We have waited for the answer today; it has not been forthcoming.

It is critical to public trust that the Government are transparent about the decision making that led to this process being adopted. The motion before us seeks to do just that by calling on the Government to release correspondence and communications pertaining to the decision not to order an independent NAO-led investigation and instead to commission their own review. For the sake of public confidence that all decisions have been made in good faith, and with the express intent to get the answers that the people of Teesside deserve, the Government should be open about how they reached their decision. That is all the more important because this does not relate to Teesside alone; it is the first project of its kind, with far-reaching implications for Mayors, combined authorities and development corporations. We need to know the truth now so that we can learn the lessons later.

The Government have had the chance today to establish a credible public policy reason why the Mayor’s own self-referral to the NAO, supported by everyone but the Government, was rejected. We did not hear any such reason from the Minister; we heard false equivalence about processes pertaining to different public bodies. Unless the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) takes this opportunity to change course, we must use Parliament to compel the release of the information behind the decision. We must vote for the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Nearly 18 months after the publication of the levelling up White Paper, instead of meaningful levelling up, all that we have is disorganisation and disappointment. The levelling-up directors were supposed to cut through the dysfunction to help areas obtain the support that they needed, and it was announced with great fanfare that there were nearly 600 applications for those roles. But as with everything this Department does, it was all smoke and mirrors, because the roles have now been quietly dropped and no levelling-up directors are to be appointed. Will the Minister come clean? The Government have given on levelling-up directors because they have given up on levelling up, have they not?

[Dehenna Davison]

Absolutely not.

Voter ID

Alex Norris Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Colleagues will have been dismayed to learn that fewer than 90,000 of the up to 2 million people without appropriate ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. Voter ID has always been a solution in search of a problem. Millions of pounds have been squandered on this process, and we now find that hundreds of thousands of people have had their votes taken off them. The Minister talks of experts, but all the experts—the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association—begged the Government not to introduce voter ID for the May elections because there was not enough time. Ministers did not listen, and this is the consequence. The sole accountability is theirs. We wait to be shown the scale of this travesty; that is rightly a role for the independent review, but the review will work only if it has the correct data.

Last month, during oral questions, I raised the point that many returning officers intended to use greeters outside polling stations to turn away those without ID, and that those turned away would not count as having been denied votes. That is deeply wrong, and not acceptable. The Minister did not address this point in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so let me press her again. Whose advice is right? Will people who are turned away by someone outside a polling station who asked whether they had appropriate ID count as people who have been denied a vote, or will they not?

[Rachel Maclean]

I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman has sought to rehash arguments that we have already had numerous times in this place, and I find it surprising that his party is not committed to protecting the sanctity of the ballot box. The reason we have had to introduce this legislation is the absolute fiasco that we have seen unfolding in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham over the years. We need to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, and that is what we are doing. We are introducing a number of measures to collect the data that will enable us to conduct the detailed analysis that is required by the legislation and by the electorate, and that is the right way of doing things.

May I ask why, if the Labour party is so opposed to voter ID, it requires ID for all its candidate selection meetings? Why have Labour Members stated time and again that they know full well that most people in this country have a valid form of ID? What is good enough for candidate selection in the Labour party should be good enough for our local elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am told by the Association of Electoral Administrators that some returning officers plan to use greeters at the front doors of polling stations to check whether people have the correct ID. If they do not, they will be turned away. Currently, those who are turned away will not be logged as having been refused a ballot on the grounds of a lack of ID. Such a person will be logged only if they make it to the main desk and are refused there. That is totally daft and will, of course, completely skew the data for the independent review. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. Will she commit today to correcting it?

[Dehenna Davison]

We know that about 98% of electors have the right identification. We have put additional funding into rolling out our information campaign so that people know what identification is required. It is right that local authorities take whatever measures they can to ensure that people have the right ID. Ultimately, we are confident that this will not reduce voter turnout.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [Lords]

Alex Norris Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my congratulations to Lord Haywood on initiating this important Bill in the other place and on securing its progress so far. If it is successful—I think we can have complete confidence in that success—it will be the first private Member’s Bill in several years to start in the other place and make it on to the statute book. That will be no mean achievement and I know that we will get a decisive step closer to that goal today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on his leadership of this legislation in its proceedings in the Commons and on the case he has ably made for his Bill today and in previous sittings.

Significant contributions were also made by other Conservative Members. I want to cover the point made by the hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) about disability in a moment, because it is such an important point—let me associate myself with the comments they made about its importance.

First, however, I wish to deal with something that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said in an intervention. He always has interesting points to make on our democracy and how it runs, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, as he knows. The one he made about guidance is so important—guidance is always important. We are all saying today that voting is an individual act, a “private act”, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) characterised it. If that is the case, we have to make it easy to do, so that, in general, a person would not need to solicit support because the guidance is so clear and things are obvious.

I am less of a fan of the more complicated and novel systems of election, but sometimes there may be multiple candidates and that does get tricky. When the single transferable vote is used, people wonder whether to vote in the first column or the second column—that can get tricky. It is up to the regulators and, obviously, the leadership in this place, to make sure that that guidance is so clear. That touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) about the staff working in the polling stations, as we need things to be easy for them too. We cannot now have a significant range of burdens, or even tensions or anxieties, for them in respect of having to become enablers and supporters of votes; they do not want to be going anywhere near those booths either. The guidance has to be really clear, both for the individuals and for the staff we ask to administer those elections.

I wish to make a point or two of my own, but I am pleased that there is such consensus on this issue. As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, this is fundamentally a point about clarity. No matter how well established the spirit of the Ballot Act may be, 151 years later there is a lack of clarity, and the Bill adds that clarity. Our democratic processes must be free from intimidation and—a point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—free from inducement as well. That was the spirit of the Act which put into law the secret ballot that we enjoy to this day. In one fell swoop, it put an end to the egregious practices of landowners and employers influencing their workers’ or tenants’ votes.

However, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to fully tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote in one particular way, or indeed not at all, by others. Those practices are always unacceptable, but they do happen, and this is the moment for us to act to end them. Intimidation of this kind goes against all our democratic principles, but there is an ambiguity, which the Electoral Commission has highlighted, so the case for change is clear.

In the other place, the Government provided important reassurances about the continuation of any assistance that disabled voters may need in order to vote. That is right and proper, and I am glad that it will not be affected by the Bill. As we heard from my hon. Friend for Darlington (Peter Gibson), there was a “build-out” for this in the Elections Act 2022. Nevertheless, I think that, as far as humanly possible, we should collectively seek to render this moot by providing appropriate assistive technologies enabling disabled people to vote independently, which would remove the need for another person to be there.

In Committee I mentioned the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism, as well as campaign groups representing deaf people, blind people, people living with Usher syndrome, and deaf-blind people more generally. They want the right technologies and support to ensure that as many people as possible—indeed, virtually everyone—can vote, and vote independently. That should be our aspiration. As I have said, the Elections Act has moved us in the right direction, but I suspect that we will need to monitor the success of its provisions and those of the Bill, and I dare say we may need to go further still in the fullness of time.

Notwithstanding those points, the Opposition welcome the Bill and are glad to support it today. It is vital for us to have clear law in this area, with no ambiguity about what is and what is not acceptable practice at polling stations, and the Bill constitutes an important step towards ensuring that happens.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [ Lords ]

Alex Norris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I rise to ask a simple, straightforward question. The Bill applies to parliamentary elections across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It applies to English local elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. As was said, it does not apply to Scotland or Wales. Rather than just informing the Administrations in Scotland and Wales of this modest change to legislation, have there been any approaches to see whether the Sewel convention could be used, so that the legislation will automatically apply to Wales and Scotland, with their consent?

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.

I thank the noble Lord Hayward for sponsoring this important Bill in the other place and I congratulate him on securing its swift progress through to its Commons stages. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on his work in this area and on the case he made for the Bill this morning, which was very good and a handy way to start the discussion.

This is a short but important Bill for the integrity of our elections and our democracy more widely. As was covered during debates in the other place—they are very much worth a read, and it was helpful that the hon. Gentleman brought them into this debate, because some of those contributions were excellent—it is crucial that our democratic process is free from abuse and intimidation. That was the spirit of the 1872 Act, 151 years ago, which curtailed many of the terrible practices that occurred in elections before its passing. As was explained in the other place, however, a clear and identifiable problem remains with the Act as it stands: it does not give presiding officers the right tools to tackle the problem of people being compelled to vote one way, or not at all, by others.

It is unacceptable that such practices still occur. The intimidation of voters is contrary to all our democratic principles, but the law as it stands lacks clarity on the matter. That has been acknowledged by the Electoral Commission, which it is helpful to note. There is therefore clearly a case for changing the legislation and making such practices an offence. The Bill will do exactly that.

I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood about a bigger piece of work to consolidate our electoral law in one place. The Law Commission report is a good starter. Those points were well made, and I share them.

Important reassurances were given in the other place—I am sure the Minister will reiterate them—about disabled voters continuing to have any assistance they need to vote, where necessary. That practice, which is right and proper, will not be impacted by the Bill. Last week, I took part in an event—as did the Minister—organised by the My Vote My Voice campaign, which aims to improve participation in voting by adults with learning disabilities and/or autism.

I have had similar such conversations about voting with people with Usher syndrome, those who are deaf and blind more generally, and those who are blind. They all say the same thing: they want hurdles to voting lowered so that they can vote with greater confidence. Happily, the provisions in the Bill do not impair that, but there is something to be said for going above and beyond the Bill, building out from it to ensure that the right technologies are available or that there is staff training. The hon. Member for Peterborough also talked about staff training and how—including under the Elections Act 2022—there should be more training on how to ensure that people living with disabilities can vote independently. We would not then have to worry about another person being there, because the assistive technologies are there—those exist, and that is what such electors want. I hope we build out from this legislation in that way.

To conclude, it is important that we have good, strong law in this area, to provide a clear understanding of what is and what is not acceptable practice at a polling station. The Opposition support the Bill and look forward to its timely passing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I am pleased to say that the Government also support the Bill, which is being sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. We are grateful for his efforts and work in this regard. I join him in paying tribute to Lord Hayward, who has been an absolute stalwart in pushing forward this important agenda and ensuring that the Bill is before us today. He is joined in the Public Gallery by a number of others with interests in this area, including Councillor Tanner and Councillor Peter Golds.

My hon. Friend’s Bill arises from concerns over so-called family voting, which we have discussed, which is when family members or others accompany voters into a polling booth in a polling station for the apparent purpose of influencing or guiding how they cast their vote. The Government share the concerns expressed about the issue and we are committed to safeguarding our democracy against those who would harm it. That is why we are supporting the Bill.

I will run through the clauses briefly, but I do not seek to detain the Committee for too long. Clause 1 makes a number of important changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough explained, it outlines that a person commits an offence if they are with a voter in a polling booth, or near it, but it also sets out the reasons why people would not be committing an offence in appropriate instances, which have already been outlined—with those who need assistance or are disabled.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, both of us in the past few days have been to events—I am grateful to him for supporting and helping to organise an event last week—at which the importance of greater participation and greater involvement in the democratic process was clear. Those events aim to encourage and support those who need additional assistance, which is a vital part of the electoral system, although we must also ensure that we can do the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is requiring under the Bill.

I hope the hon. Gentleman can see some of the changes that are being introduced in May, particularly with regard to people with sight loss and trying to provide a greater range of options and technology to support them, as a step forward and part of that broad agenda.

Voter Identification

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The implementation of a voter identification scheme has always been a solution in search of a problem. We are more likely to be struck by lightning 54 times than to be queueing behind a person committing vote fraud at a polling station. Nevertheless, for their own purposes, the Government chose to force through voter ID legislation this time last year.

For months, those who administer and monitor our elections—the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission—all warned the Government that there was not enough time to safely implement the scheme for May or for those without ID to get a voter authority certificate. The Minister disregarded this expert advice and pushed ahead anyway, and the complacency that we have heard today is breathtaking.

I am sorry if the 2 million figure is such a problem for the Minister, but the reality is that the applications that have been made represent just over 1% of those who will need this. At the current rate of sign-up, it will take a decade to get credentials to everyone who needs them, but there are only 72 days to polling day. We are risking widespread disenfranchisement. When is the Minister going to wake up and act to prevent these voter ID requirements from locking huge numbers of people out of our democracy at the next election?

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman continues to perpetuate the myth that this is some form of suppression. He is absolutely incorrect. Putting aside party political views, we have a responsibility in this place to make sure that we are temperate with our language, particularly when it relates to something as important as the ballot box. [Interruption.] He chunters that I should listen to the experts, but if this urgent question had not been granted—although I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to it—I would have been in a meeting right now with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association and the Electoral Commission, to continue my regular interactions about making sure that this works.