English Devolution

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question, and for her service as an elected council member for a period. I understand that there will be concerns about the move to larger unitaries, but the fact is that there is a two-tier premium that the taxpayer is paying. At a time when resources are limited, we have a responsibility to take money from councils’ overhead costs in the back office and bring them to the frontline to give people good neighbourhood services. I suspect that if people were asked, “Would you prefer the existing two-tier system or more money being directed at local public services?”, most would want the money to go into local public services. However, there is a balance here, and it is for local areas to find it.

We are very clear in the White Paper that we want to move away from councillors being perceived as back-bench. We want to reform them, essentially, as frontline councillors —as the conveners of a community, with greater power and influence and the ability to get things done.

On social care, an additional £4 billion was provided in the Budget, with the provisional settlement to be announced this week. Of that amount, £600 million is for a recovery grant to go to areas with high deprivation but low tax bases, to ensure that we rebalance fairness in the system.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Although the Minister said in his statement that the proposal was the end of a top-down approach from central Government, to many of my constituents it looks like a one-size-fits-all model that works for Greater Manchester, which he represents quite ably, but does not necessarily work for the rural English counties. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents—and me, frankly—that this approach will not be imposed on local areas against their will? How will he measure consent from a local area that this is the approach they want?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for securing a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue. The Government do not accept the one-size-fits-all argument any more than an argument that councillors work in some areas but not others, and that Members of Parliament work in some areas but not others. In the end, when given the powers and resources, mayors can achieve change in partnership with local leaders.

We are not creating super-councils. We are creating a strategic authority that will give power from this place downwards, giving councillors far more power. On how we will do it, I can say that in Lancashire, in our drive to widen devolution across the country, the principle is for foundation authorities; of course, Lancashire has already agreed to a level 2, which, in the White Paper, would be the equivalent of a foundation authority. In that sense, it already has devolution in place.

Devolution: Lancashire

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a devolution deal for Lancashire.

It is a pleasure to serve under the chairship of a fellow Lancastrian Member of this House, Mr Dowd, on this very special day. I begin by wishing everybody fortunate enough to have been born in the red rose county, and those who have chosen to make it their home, a very happy Lancashire Day. Very shortly, schoolchildren across Lancashire will be tucking into their special school lunch, which I believe includes a favourite of mine, butter pie. I can highly recommend it with some nice warming baked beans on the side, washed down with Lancashire’s finest soft drink, Vimto.

The county of Lancashire was established in 1182 and came to be bordered by Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and Cheshire. An awful lot of history happened between 1182 and the 1970s. Since we only have half an hour, I will not go into that now, but if Members are keen perhaps we can apply for a longer debate on it. By the census of 1971, the population of Lancashire and its county boroughs had reached over 5 million, making it the most populous geographic county in the UK.

I suppose that is partly why, on 1 April 1974, under the Local Government Act 1972, the old county was abolished, as were many county boroughs. The urbanised southern part largely became part of the metropolitan counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, with Lancashire over the sands to the north becoming part of a newly formed Cumbria. It is a great pleasure to have members from the Cumbria, Merseyside and Greater Manchester parts—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cat Smith]

I give way to my friend from Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I want to add my support for the Lancashire Day celebrations. My connection is with the hon. Lady—I have always attended to support her debates, and I want to continue that tradition. I wish her well in what she does. Lancashire is an integral and important part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank her for the opportunity to discuss it.

[Cat Smith]

I thank my friend for that lovely intervention and celebrate the links between the west coast of England and Northern Ireland—long may they continue and prosper.

The outline of the 1972 boundaries looks much like the Lancashire of today. The ceremonial county of Lancashire is divided into 14 local government districts. Twelve are part of our two-tier non-metropolitan county of Lancashire, which is administered by Lancashire county council—the 12 districts of the non-metropolitan county are Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre—but Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen are unitary authorities formed in 1996, before which each district was part of the non-metropolitan county of Lancashire.

Lancashire has 16 Members of Parliament, and I consider myself honoured and privileged to be one of them. I served the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency from 2015 until the last general election, when I was re-elected to serve the newly created—or potentially recreated, depending on how far people’s memories go back—Lancaster and Wyre constituency. As part of my work getting to understand my new patch, I tried to work out how many local councillors I had with a shared geography in my constituency. Unfortunately, I quickly became overwhelmed, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the House of Commons Library for its assistance. I asked the Library for the number of county, district and parish councillors who represent areas within the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, but it turned out that even it did not have access to a complete dataset of the number of councillors in each of those types of area. However, it did provide me with an analysis of the number of county electoral divisions, wards and parishes in the constituency, which got me started.

I ask Members to bear with me, because not all the geographies exactly match up, as I explained, but this will give some idea of the number of councillors at play. When it comes to elected representatives, we have one police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, who covers the whole of Lancaster and Wyre. There are eight Lancashire county councillors elected to serve across eight divisions, including Lancaster Rural East, about a quarter of which is in my constituency.

Turning to district council wards, all eight of the Wyre district council wards are within the constituency boundary—that is nice and neat—along with 11 Lancaster council wards, including Skerton, half of which is in a different constituency. In total, that makes 19 wards. However, wards in Wyre and Lancaster can be represented by one, two or three councillors. This is where hon. Members might need to start making detailed notes if they are trying to add up how many councillors I have. There are 27 Lancaster city councillors and 15 Wyre borough councillors in the constituency, which totals 42 district councillors for Lancaster and Wyre.

Much of the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, and indeed much of Lancashire, is parished. Many parish councillors—I pay tribute to them—are incredibly active and engaged with their communities. There are 27 parishes within the boundaries of my constituency: seven in the Lancaster area and 20 in the Wyre area. That figure includes two Lancaster parishes that are only marginally within my constituency, with the majority of the parish in a different constituency.

The parishes in the Lancaster part of my constituency are Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Cockerham, Ellel, Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, Morecambe, Over Wyresdale, Scotforth and Thurnham. The parishes in the Wyre part of my constituency are Barnacre-with-Bonds, Bleasdale, Cabus, Catterall, Claughton, Forton, Garstang, Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Inskip-with-Sowerby, Kirkland, Myerscough and Bilsborrow, Nateby, Nether Wyresdale, Out Rawcliffe, Pilling, Preesall, Stalmine-with-Staynall, Upper Rawcliffe-with-Tarnacre, and Winmarleigh.

Looking at the websites of those parish councils—I had to assume that they are not carrying any vacancies—I found that there were 194 parish councillors in Lancaster and Wyre. I quickly realised it would take me a long time to have a cup of tea with all of them. If we add those to the 42 district councillors, eight county councillors and one police and crime commissioner, we discover that the Lancaster and Wyre constituency has not only one elected Member of Parliament, but 245 other elected officials who can claim to represent it. If that was replicated across Lancashire’s 16 other parliamentary constituencies, we would have almost 4,000 representatives across the red rose county. I am not sure how many elected representatives the Minister serves alongside in his constituency, but I will guess, given its metropolitan nature, that the number is not quite so high.

Why does Lancashire have so much local government, and is it a good thing or a bad thing? To be fair, I think there are pros and cons. Sometimes, my constituents can get confused about which councils are responsible for what. The district council collects their waste and recycling, but the county council processes it, and that can seem quite muddled to a lot of folk. But it is not just my constituents who get confused and frustrated; I confess that I, too, have been known to exclaim in the office that some trees are pruned by the district council and others by the county council. When I have an angry constituent frustrated by a tree on the end of the phone and am not clear which council is responsible, it is no wonder our constituents get frustrated too.

The upper-tier local authority, Lancashire county council, often generously, shall we say, offers to relinquish its responsibilities to parish councils. I have seen that trend more and more. That may take the form of the county council giving up the maintenance of assets from its estates department, such as the Esplanade shelter in Knott End—which it has just realised, after 113 years, that it does not formally own—or asking parish councils, instead of its transport department, to buy their own electronic speed indicator devices. It feels grossly unfair that residents are doubly charged, through council tax and parish council precepts, for the same maintenance and transport services.

But is the answer pushing a one-size-fits-all model of local government that works for England’s metropolitan areas on to a rural county such as Lancashire? Lancashire’s local government looks the way it does because it has evolved to meet the needs of the communities across our vast and diverse county. I mentioned the commitment and enthusiasm of parish councillors. Those are completely unsalaried posts. Passionate volunteers give up their time to organise village gala days, Christmas lights, Remembrance Sunday parades and so much more. We would be foolish to underestimate the dedication of our parish councillors and their commitment to the communities they call home. Similarly, district councils help residents feel more connected to local government in a county that has many towns and villages with distinct identities. They do not always have strong transport connections between them, and are separated by vast swathes of countryside.

I can see the attraction on the part of the Government to neatly divide the whole of England into broadly equally sized unitary authorities, with metro mayors sitting above them. It makes the Government’s job easier to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I proudly acknowledge that I too am a Lancastrian, and my constituency includes vast amounts of Lancashire over the sands, which it is my privilege to represent. The hon. Lady says that local government reorganisation is sometimes done by the Government to suit the Government, rather than the communities that councils are meant to serve. In Cumbria, we had a unitary reorganisation only last April. Does she understand why businesses and residents in Westmorland and the rest of Cumbria are heavily opposed to the idea that a mayor might be imposed, and another reorganisation carried out barely five minutes after the last one?

[Cat Smith]

I understand very well why the hon. Gentleman’s constituents feel that way. I was very involved in the consultations around the reorganisation in Cumbria, not least because there was a strong bid by the Lancaster district within Lancashire and a desire to go in with South Lakeland and Barrow councils to form a bay authority, which would have matched what the community looks at and where its identity lies. The north of Lancashire has always looked to the north, into what we now call Cumbria—which, of course, was fictitiously created in 1972, as I alluded to earlier. In my opinion, much of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to this day remains part of the red rose county, but I would certainly not support his constituents being further inconvenienced by a local government reorganisation. I think he will enjoy the arguments I am about to make about a mayor for Lancashire. We may find common ground on which we can form an alliance.

We need something that works for communities. The communities represented by these structures should feel that they represent them and work for them. It is hard to see how a rural county that stretches from the edge of Merseyside and Greater Manchester right to the edges of the Lake District national park—from the Irish sea to the Yorkshire border—can truly be represented by just one man. I make no apology for saying “man”. The vast majority of mayors elected have been men, and I see no evidence to suggest that Lancashire might suddenly buck the trend. Since 2012, Lancashire has elected a police and crime commissioner; it is the only post elected across the whole of Lancashire, and it has only ever been held by a man. Clive Grunshaw served from 2012 to 2021, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) served from 2021 to 2024, and since May this year Clive Grunshaw has been in post again. I must declare that I have a good working relationship with both men. Clive was my constituency Labour party chairperson for many years, and the hon. Member for Fylde is now my constituency neighbour, and we are finding common ground on many constituency issues. My issue is not with those individuals, but the point is that they are both men.

In fact, no woman has ever stood as a political party’s candidate for police and crime commissioner. That does not bode well for a future mayor of Lancashire. In 2012, there were four candidates for police and crime commissioner—Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and Liberal Democrats—but all were men. In 2016, there were again four candidates—Labour, Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. In 2021, there were four candidates—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Reform—and all were men. In 2024, there were three candidates—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. Asking Lancashire to adopt a mayoral model of devolution is asking us to devolve power from women council leaders, roughly half of whom are women, to a man, as mayor.

After all the progress the Labour party has made in increasing women’s representation in Westminster, we have more women MPs than ever in Lancashire—six out of 16, so there is still work to be done—we risk undoing that progress. There are women council leaders at Lancashire county council; at one of our two unitary councils, Blackpool; and in six of our 12 districts—Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Rossendale, South Ribble and West Lancashire. There is clearly something about this model of local government that seems to create a more equal gender balance among leaders, and I fear that we are taking power away from those women leaders and regressing to a model that favours men.

So here we are: Lancashire Day 2024. We are a county that has changed and embraced change many times before. We have a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a diverse range of cities, towns and villages across the rich landscapes of our red rose county.

Local councillors and I have questions for the Minister, which I hope he can address.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing a debate on this historic day, which we celebrate as Lancashire Day—a day that promotes and preserves the true identity of Lancashire. I support the devolution of powers and funding to Lancashire. Lancashire includes Blackburn, which is, incidentally, the best-run unitary authority in the area, and which has more than 25 years’ experience of managing children’s and adult social care services. I am working closely with that authority. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to the powers given to local authorities must be made in close consultation with authorities such as Blackburn with Darwen borough council?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. Devolution must not be done to Lancashire; it must be done with us. We have examples of successful councils, as he outlines, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all want to see Lancashire move forward, be successful and embrace change, but not in a one-size-fits-all way.

The Minister will be aware that I sent him an advance copy of my questions, and I hope that we can get some clear answers. My local councillors want to know whether politicians or civil servants will decide what can and cannot happen in this round of local government reorganisation, as well as how much weight will be given to community wishes and voices—that is a feeling not just from my local councillors but from hon. Members present. They also want to know whether current district authority boundaries are fixed, or whether, should Lancashire be divided, an authority can be split into two unitary authorities. Which is more important in local government reorganisation—ceremonial county boundaries or functional economic areas? What weight will be given to the mirroring of health and NHS footprints? Often the NHS is organised in a far more practical way than is local government.

What reassurance can my constituents have that their local council will not suddenly feel a million miles away from where they live, and that it will still be relevant to their lives? When it comes to a representative democracy, how can we ensure that Lancashire’s representatives continue to look more like the people we represent? How can we ensure that both rural and urban voices are heard, and that coastal communities are not forgotten? How can we ensure that we continue to make progress towards 50:50 representation of women and men in elected office? I continue to be of the belief that Lancashire is the finest of England’s counties. We are everything. We are diverse and we are beautiful, and we have a proud history going back 842 years. I want to progress with a future as bright as our past. Happy Lancashire Day.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

As a fellow Lancastrian—I am from Oldham—I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing this debate on this special day, Lancashire Day. If you go into Lancashire county hall, you will see Oldham’s crest emblazoned on the wall, pointing to our historic ties to the county of which we are very proud. This is a special day, and I am pleased to see the flag flying in New Palace Yard in recognition of that.

I welcome this debate. This is an important moment, as the English devolution White Paper is due to be published before Christmas. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I will wait for the White Paper to be published before discussing a number of aspects of that framework. However, I am certainly happy to talk about Lancashire, the agreement that has been reached and the next steps forward; that may address some of her points more directly.

This Government were elected on a platform to widen and deepen devolution across England. As part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards, we want to move power out of Westminster and back into the hands of those who know their areas better, giving those with skin in the game the tools to get the job done. In September, the Government agreed to the Lancashire devolution deal, which marked a significant step in delivering on that mission for the region. The agreement will help to reshape communities and unlock the economic growth potential of the region to benefit all residents by returning power from Westminster to local communities. Specifically, the devolution agreement means that a county combined authority will be established with Lancashire county council, Blackpool council and Blackburn with Darwen borough council as its constituent members.

Local leaders through that body will take responsibility for services delivered at a strategic level, giving them more control and influence over the levers of local growth. For example, local leaders will take control of the adult skills fund, allowing Lancashire to better shape local skills providers. The Lancashire local enterprise partnership will be integrated into the new body, ensuring a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to business support. The new body will take on the status of the local transport authority, meaning better integration for local transport in the area to make it easier for local people to get from A to B. There will be new land assembly and compulsory purchase powers, enabling housing and economic development to flourish in the future.

Yesterday, a statutory instrument was laid before Parliament to enable the combined county authority for Lancashire, and I look forward to debating that in more detail. The SI gives local leaders the powers I mentioned over transport, housing and economic development; powers over adult skills will follow. A locally run consultation demonstrated widespread support, including from the business community, for the area’s taking on these new powers.

Investment matters. That is why the devolution agreement also sees the release of £20 million of capital funding to support local growth priorities identified in the area. That could include projects such as the National Cyber Force headquarters, the innovative low-carbon data centre at Blackpool airport, the civil service hub in Blackpool, the Blackburn innovation quarter and the cosy homes project to deliver better quality, more efficient homes in the area.

I recognise that there have been live discussions on the role of district councils in the combined county authority, and it is my firm belief that district councils will continue to play a key role in the success of devolution in the area. We expect effective levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between upper-tier, unitary and district councils. In the end, it is the place and the people that matter, and we expect councils to work together in that endeavour.

The devolution agreement that we have reached with Lancashire, which is being implemented at the moment, to be the start, not the end of the devolution journey. Essentially, it is the first step. It is a down payment made in good faith to work toward a mayoral combined authority. The discussions that we have been having in that area are not only about realising the potential of Lancashire, which is important, but enabling the north of England to realise its full potential. The way to achieve that is by taking power, decision making and resources away from the centralised model that we have in this country and bringing it closer to people and the communities where they live. We believe that where mayors are in place—and they are working together now, as a unit through UK Mayors, and on the Great North project where they are organising—they are beginning to make a significant difference and showing collective leadership for the north of England in particular, and we want to see all of England benefit from that. We do not shy away from that ambition.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and myself around Cumbria and Lancashire, which are very rural counties? Does he have any thoughts on the challenges of being a mayor in a disparate and spread-out area rather than a neat metropolitan area?

[Jim McMahon]

It is important to separate out the different roles and responsibilities. We do not see mayors as being super-councils. We see mayors as regional leaders that have a strategic responsibility. That is very different from councils that provide a public service delivery responsibility. We are seeing mayors begin to make a difference where they are in place. For instance, York and North Yorkshire is highly rural, with one of the biggest geographical combined authorities in the country. We have just agreed a mayoral combined authority for Greater Lincolnshire. There is a significant rural population there, too. Of course, Hull and East Riding will have a mayor next year as well.

These devolution deals are being rolled out across the country in both urban and rural areas. In the end, it is about political leadership, accountability and getting powers from here. If people feel as though somebody down the road is distant, people feel much more that this place is distant. We have got to break the centralised model of command and control that we see here. In many of the questions that have been raised are the issues that we wrestle with—how do we balance a functioning economic area with a public service foot- print with people’s locally and strongly held identity and sense of belonging in a way that balances all those out to get to a settlement that can be supported and accepted?

Those are all issues that we face in the English devolution White Paper and will continue to form part of the agreements that we have reached. On all of those tests, Lancashire is the ideal model. It is a modern county outside of our historic roots. It has units of local government that speak to that footprint. It has units of public service delivery that speak to that footprint. It has a police and crime commissioner that speaks to that footprint, and is a functioning economic area that speaks to that footprint, too. On that basis, I think that Lancashire is a very good candidate; and I think the people of Lancashire have a lot to gain from the mayoral model of devolution.

This is worth facing head-on. In the discussions that we had in Lancashire—to refer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain)—we recognise that we want to see district councils represented, but local government reorganisation is clearly part of the conversations that are taking place. We get representations fairly regularly from council leaders and Members of Parliament, and we recognise that those are live discussions. They are separate discussions that might come together at a point in time, and we need to allow both processes to run and to be worked through in more detail.

Finally, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for securing the debate. Although we have an overarching national ambition to see devolution across the country, it is fundamentally a local issue about how best to shift powers to communities and deliver real change on the ground. We look forward to that ambition being realised in Lancashire.

Question put and agreed to.

Representation of the People

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for bringing these regulations to the House more than six months before the next scheduled set of elections. It is a benchmark of good protocol and good practice in the electoral community to bring such changes forward with good notice, because of course they affect electoral administrators up and down the country. We did not see that under the last Government, with legislation often considered by the House just a couple of months before administrators were having to implement it. I therefore thank the Government for the good notice that they are giving today.

While I welcome the regulations and will support them, there are still some huge gaps in the accessibility of ID for voting. The Electoral Commission’s early research suggests that those who are unemployed, those from lower socioeconomic groups and disabled people are struggling to access ID that enables them to vote. That is reflected in the statistics we have seen from the last general election.

The Electoral Commission, which is our independent regulator, did an awful lot of good work at the general election to ensure that public awareness of the need for ID reached the vast majority of people. I believe that 87% of people were aware of the policy, but awareness fell in certain groups, particularly among young people, where it was just 71%, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, at 76%. I call on the commission to continue to focus on the groups that are more difficult to reach, and I call on the Government to support the commission to be able to do that work so that we do not see a repeat of the general election in July, where about 16,000 people did not have the required ID to vote and were turned away at the ballot box. That is a travesty.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I am interested in the report that has come out, which I have not had a chance to see. I believe that Northern Ireland has had voter ID since 2003—that system has been in place for two decades—so we have a direct comparison within the UK of voters in the general election, from which we can learn. Is there any evidence to suggest that Northern Ireland struggled? Given that it is two decades ahead of England in this case, would not it be interesting to see the comparative data so that the Government can take that forward and learn from Northern Ireland?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is testing my memory: I have read comparative data on Northern Ireland, but that was some time ago. I believe that it took several electoral cycles in Northern Ireland for information to be understood by the electorate and used more confidently.

The way in which the free voter ID cards are issued in Northern Ireland is different from Great Britain, and that brings me to voter authority certificates. One thing that I felt disappointed about at the last general election was the lower than expected take-up of those certificates. That might be partly because they were not made as appealing as they could be, and that was not necessarily about the application process.

I believe that in Northern Ireland people get a plastic card that can be used as ID for things other than voting, whereas the voter authority certificate in Great Britain is a piece of paper, which someone who is, for example, 19 or 20 years old will not want to take with them down to the local nightclub to try and gain access. The small plastic card, which is more durable for other purposes as well, had a higher take-up. Will the Minister respond with her thoughts about whether voter authority certificates could be expanded or developed, perhaps learning from parts of the United Kingdom where they have had higher take-up?

In the public opinion data from the general election, we learned that 4% of people who did not vote said that their decision was related to the voter ID requirement. My concern is that that research suggests there are people who are not turning up at polling stations for that reason. The data that the Government can access is from those who turn up at polling stations and are turned away, but I think that we are missing a lot of people who never left the house. Certainly my experience on polling day was of meeting voters who knew they did not have access to ID—perhaps they did not know about the voter authority certificate—and had decided to stay at home.

I approach this in a positive way and want to put recommendations and suggestions to the Minister on how we can improve access to democracy, which is incredibly important. I am pleased to hear that the Government will review the list of accepted forms of ID. I plead with the Minister to look seriously at ID that is accessible to younger voters, those with disabilities and those from ethnic minorities in addition to the veteran card, whose inclusion I very much welcome.

As the original legislation passed through Committee, one thing that was debated was whether registered voters who have ID and can prove their identity could make an attestation at the polling station on behalf of someone who does not have accepted ID, which is known as vouching. For example, we have Mr and Mrs Smith, and while Mrs Smith has a driving licence, Mr Smith does not, and neither of them have passports. They could go to the polling station together, where she could attest that her husband, who is with her, is who he says he is—the entitled voter—and use one ID to vouch for the whole household to ensure that he is not disenfranchised. I came across such a case in my constituency at the election.

As has been said, turnout at the general election fell below 60%, which was the lowest level since 2001. It was down 7.6 percentage points on the 2019 general election. That should give us all pause for thought. I believe that we have a crisis of voter participation in this country, with voters who are entitled and registered to vote choosing not to vote. The crisis is not people turning up at the polling station, pretending to be someone they are not and taking more votes than they are entitled to; it is those who are entitled to vote not voting. When turnout declines, the strength our democracy declines with it. I am pleased to hear the Government talk about strengthening participation in democracy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about that in winding up.

May I ask the Minister whether she plans to return to the House—and if so, whether she has an idea of the timescale—to add more IDs to the list of acceptable IDs? Does she agree that to strengthen democracy we should be looking at how to increase voter participation and not placing additional barriers to people taking part?

On that point, the electoral roll continues to be deeply inaccurate. We now have the technology to look seriously at automatic voter registration, and the state knows who lives where and who is entitled to vote, so is there a way in which we can ensure that our electoral roll is far more accurate and reflects where people live so that it is easier for people to vote at a general election?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. One constituent raised with me the fact that when they move, before they have finished unpacking they get a council tax bill. We can get people’s information for that, so should we not register them to vote in the same way? The data is there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

As I would expect, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee makes a valid point. The reality is that in this country we make it very difficult for people to register to vote. I think that we can make it easier. We can make people’s lives easier, and hopefully encourage participation in democracy. As I said, I am worried about the health of democracy in this country, and one of the things that worries me the most is the lack of participation. Voter turnout being on the decline concerns me, and I believe that it should concern the whole House.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Nothing. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for that, then he has completely misunderstood the purpose of the statement and the operational independence of the Electoral Commission, and apportioned malign intentions to the Government. I know that he wants to say, “Oh, this is mission creep because that is something else, and the Government are trying to take over an independent body”—it is nothing of the sort.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that others wish to speak. They can read the statement for themselves, but I hope that the examples I have given indicate that the strategy and policy statement augment what the Electoral Commission does. My Department and I have good relations with the commission. We never seek to direct. We admire and respect the work that the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission does in discharging its duty. I have the honour of being a member of that Committee, as do the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East; the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins); the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith); and others—so it is not even weighted in His Majesty’s Government’s favour.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

This is a benign statement, supporting the commission in its work, addressing the changes introduced post the Elections Act 2022 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2023. It is all part of our process to ensure that our electoral system is resilient, open, transparent, secure and has the maximum access to all who have the eligibility to cast a vote on whichever election day it may happen to be. How they vote is entirely up to them; how the commission sets its priorities is entirely up to it. Mr Speaker and his Committee will hold the commission to account, not Parliament. There is no mandate in the statement that the commission has to provide a statement or report, annually or quarterly, to my Department or to the Secretary of State. The usual communication channels between the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Commission remain.

Given the fragility of our democracy and the outside pressures facing most western democracies today, I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that, in trying to ascribe ill intention, Machiavellian motivation and some sort of surreptitious purpose of undermining democracy to this benign statement of good will, they demean themselves and they demean and weaken democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I associate myself with everything he said, which allows me to cut short my speech; I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

When preparing for the debate, I took a little time to learn what the public think of the Electoral Commission. Some research was carried out, and the words most frequently used by voters to describe the commission were “independent”, “important” and “professional”. At a time in our politics when fake news, misinformation and artificial intelligence are seen as threats, and frankly are threats, to the security of our democracy—indeed, during Prime Minister’s questions earlier we had Members spreading fake news about vaccines and things—should it not be a source of great pride for our country that the Electoral Commission is held in such high regard by voters, who rely on it to safeguard the independence of elections and of democracy itself?

Fairness and accountability in electoral regulation depend on a strong and independent regulator, which is what the Electoral Commission is. It fulfils the vital role of overseeing our elections and regulating political finance in the UK. The commission’s independence is established in statute as a public body, independent of Government, and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, for which I am a spokesperson. I regularly attend the Chamber and answer questions from colleagues on both sides of the House about the commission’s work. In a healthy modern democracy, we should seek compromise on matters of democracy and the regulation of elections, and not allow one party to set all the rules.

One party is in Government today, but there will have to be an election, and should another party form the next Government, they could author the next statement. We need to ensure that the structures that we agree as a House can withstand changes of political party in government. Political parties that are not represented in the House today might one day be elected to this House, and they might not value democracy as much as I know all right hon. and hon. Members here today do. The structure that we are being asked to approve today comes straight out of a Republican party playbook of politicising the Electoral Commission. Those of us who see that as a threat do so because we look at what is going on in other countries and other democracies. We also look at what has been going on here through the various iterations of Conservative Governments over the past 14 years.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) set out some of this already, but it is worth reiterating that this is not a first offence. This is a Government who repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 to allow a Prime Minister to decide when the starting whistle can be blown on a general election. This is a Government who changed the way that electoral registration worked, moving from household registration to individual electoral registration, which meant that millions of people fell off the electoral roll—at which point, the Government decided to draw the new electoral boundaries using the numbers in that snapshot. By the way, those electoral boundaries were for 600 MPs, because at that point that number looked advantageous to the Conservative party. Then we had the 2019 general election and the picture looked a little different. It was then more electorally advantageous for the Conservative party to have 650 Members, so guess what happened? Yes, with absolutely no explanation, we went back to 650 Members.

The freedom to protest peacefully is important in a democracy, but it has been curtailed under this Government. The Elections Act 2022 contains a plethora of things that are damaging to the security and safety of our democracy. Voter ID has been widely discussed in this House, and it is true that it is easier for some voters to vote with photo ID than it is for others. A now ex-Minister slipped up and accidentally said what was actually happening, which is that an attempt to gerrymander in the Government’s favour had suddenly been found not to be in their favour. Voter ID was an attempt to make voting harder for those who were not planning to vote Conservative and easier for those who were planning to vote Conservative, although it arguably backfired somewhat.

The Government are also changing the rules on who can vote, which is important, and this week we have seen changes that remove the 15-year limit on overseas voters. We now have a situation in which a person who has lived outside this country for 16 years can vote in UK general elections, but a 16-year-old who has lived in the UK all their life cannot vote in a UK general election. Who gets to vote is political.

This is the politicisation of the Electoral Commission. The Elections Act changed the electoral system for police and crime commissioners and Mayors to the party political advantage of the Conservative party. The general election spending threshold for political parties has been raised way above inflation, with absolutely no explanation other than that the Conservative party feels confident that it has the money to spend. Now we have a strategy and policy statement to direct the work of our independent commission. I will call it what it is. This is the politicisation of the independent Electoral Commission. All Members of this House who believe in the independence of our Electoral Commission would do well to cast their vote against this motion today, because the consequences will be far-ranging.

The point of the Minister’s statement, which he has now read out several times, is that any future Government may set the direction and policy priorities of the independent Electoral Commission. Let us keep politics out of the Electoral Commission by opposing this motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not, because the House has a lot of business today. Let me address the points that have been raised by others, because I want to give due attention to the points they have made.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) really should have a word with her own Front Benchers about overseas voters. Let me quote from her hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on the statutory instrument we took upstairs on Wednesday 6 December 2023, when, from the Labour Front Bench, she told the Committee:

“We do not oppose the principle of overseas voting and giving citizens who still have a strong connection to the UK a voice in our elections, and that includes people who still have a strong connection to our local services and communities”.—[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 6 December 2023; c. 6.]

So the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is entirely out of step with her hon. Friend on the Front Bench.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way this time. I wish to object in that the Minister is very much misportraying the point I made in my remarks. The point I made is that it is a political decision to decide who gets to vote, and I was comparing 16-year-olds in the UK with someone who had lived outside the UK for 16 years. That was the point I raised, and I do not think it is at all inconsistent with those on my own party’s Front Bench.

[Simon Hoare]

I heard the hon. Lady very clearly say that in principle she was opposed to overseas voters. If I misheard her, then I apologise, but that was certainly the thrust of the remarks she made.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) describes the statement as a political agenda. Is improving disabled access having a political agenda? If so, or if that is the charge, I am going to plead guilty. Is cracking down on electoral fraud? If that is the charge, clap me in irons. Is ensuring that the rules of registration and the importance of voter ID are promoted? If so, take me off to the Tower. I plead guilty as charged.

Draft York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 General Committees

[Jacob Young]

Absolutely. We have a statutory responsibility to consult. I will come on to that later.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Mayor would be elected every four years on a fixed-term basis. Why does he think that that is a better system than the Mayor being able to decide when he or she wishes to have an election, just as the Prime Minister gets to choose when to hold the UK general election?

[Jacob Young]

Local government generally holds elections every four years. We are considering a local government Mayor and we therefore think that it is right that they are elected every four years.

As I was saying, the adult education budget will be devolved to the combined authority later, as agreed with the area. That is with a view to the area being responsible for skills and adult education from the academic year 2025-26, subject to its meeting the readiness conditions, and to parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation that confers the functions.

The order also provides for the governance arrangements of the combined authority. Each constituent council will have two members on the combined authority, and the Mayor will appoint one of them to be Deputy Mayor. The Mayor will also appoint a Deputy Mayor for policing and crime, who may be any person the Mayor considers appropriate. Those governance arrangements provide that the PFCC functions and certain other functions—for example, the power to designate a mayoral development area, or to draw up local transport plans and strategies—are to be exercised by the Mayor personally. The Mayor may delegate the exercise of those functions to another member or officer of the authority, with particular specified arrangements for the PFCC functions.

The order will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with this order, we have laid a section 105B report, which provides details about the public authority functions that we are devolving to the combined authority, some of which are to be exercised by the Mayor.

The statutory origin of the order is in a governance review and scheme adopted by the constituent councils in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act. It reflects the agreed devolution deal.

As provided for by the 2009 Act, the councils of York and North Yorkshire consulted on the proposals in their scheme. That goes directly to the point that the hon. Member for Wansbeck made. The councils promoted the consultation by several means and activities. Responses could be made online or directly by email or on paper. That public consultation ran from 21 October to 16 December 2022, and a total of around 2,500 people responded to it through a variety of platforms. As statute requires, the constituent councils provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses on 9 March 2023. The results of the online survey show that a majority of 54% of respondents support or strongly support the overall proposals for the establishment of and the governance arrangements for a new mayoral combined authority and an elected Mayor.

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the order meets the statutory tests in the 2009 Act, namely that no further consultation is necessary, and that conferring the proposed powers would be likely to: improve the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority area; reflect the identities and interests of local communities; secure effective and convenient local government, and ensure that, where the functions are local authority functions, they can be appropriately exercised by the combined authority.

Most importantly, the order opens a way to providing the very considerable funding for the area set out in the deal. That includes £18 million of annual investment funding for York and North Yorkshire for the next 30 years. In total, that will mean more than £500 million to be invested in the area to drive growth and take forward local priorities. The deal also includes an additional £1 million to support the development of local transport plans, more than £13 million for building new homes on brownfield land during 2023-24 and 2024-25, and £7 million investment to drive green economic growth, along with investment of up to £2.65 million in projects that support the area’s priority of delivering affordable, low-carbon homes.

The existing local enterprise partnership will be integrated into the new combined authority to facilitate support for the local economy and the business sector. The Government are currently investing £25.4 million from the UK shared prosperity fund and from the Multiply fund in the York and North Yorkshire area. From 2025-26, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority will plan and deliver this funding, if the UKSPF is continued and delivery geographies remain the same. All that will help the Mayor and local leaders to drive economic growth and development for rural, coastal and urban communities across York and North Yorkshire.

I pay tribute to the local leaders and their councils for all they have done and continue to do to address local priorities and support businesses, industry and communities across York and North Yorkshire.

The order, which is supported locally, is a significant step forward for York and North Yorkshire, its businesses and communities. It is key to the future economic development and regeneration of the area, and it will enable local leaders to invest in and address local priorities effectively. I commend it to the Committee.

Draft Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft The Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to introduce these important regulations.

In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring the ongoing integrity of our democratic process by stopping postal vote harvesting, and we are delivering on that commitment. Postal vote harvesting is the practice of third parties collecting the votes of a large numbers of postal voters. Last year, Parliament passed the Elections Act 2022, which introduced some significant changes to electoral procedure in the UK such as voter identification, improvements to the security of postal and proxy voting, and online applications for absent votes, and I am delighted to introduce a statutory instrument, that flows from that Act and implements three measures concerning the handling of postal votes and the secrecy of absent voting. The changes aim to tackle the practice of collecting, or harvesting, the votes of large numbers of postal voters and to enable electors to cast their votes confidently and securely outside of the polling station.

The first measure introduces a ban on political campaigners handling postal voting documents issued to another person. The second sets out that, in addition to their own postal vote, an individual will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors, either at a polling station or directly to the returning officer, which is typically achieved by handing them in to the returning officer’s staff at the council office. The third measure extends existing secrecy provisions for those voting in person in a polling station to those voting by post and by proxy. The measures implement recommendations set out in the 2016 report into electoral fraud published by Lord Pickles, and are designed to improve the security of absent voting and make it less vulnerable to potential fraud.

Let me set out the measures in the statutory instrument in more detail. Currently, there are no restrictions on who may hand in postal votes or how many may be handed in by any single person, and there is no record of who has handed in a postal vote. That is unacceptable, because it creates opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to undermine the integrity of postal voting. For example, there is a concern that voters could be coerced into completing their postal voting statement before handing the unmarked ballot paper to be filled in elsewhere by someone else, or that completed ballots could be tampered with out of sight of the voter and the returning officer. Tackling the collection, or harvesting, of votes in this way delivers on a manifesto commitment that we are determined to deliver on.

Furthermore, even when acting legitimately, people seen handing in large numbers of postal votes create the perception and suspicion of impropriety, which can be damaging to public confidence in the electoral system. We want to address that while striking the right balance between security and propriety and keeping the electoral process accessible. Under the draft regulations, in addition to their own postal vote, a person will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other people either at a polling station or to the returning officer via the council office. We consider that that is a reasonable limit that will support the integrity of postal voting. A person handing in postal votes will be required to complete a form that includes information such as their name and address, the number of persons whose postal votes they are handing in, and the reason for this. Postal votes in excess of the limit or not handed in in accordance with those requirements will be rejected.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

If a member of the public or an elector turned up at a polling station with more than the permitted number of postal votes, how would it be decided which one of those postal vote packs was to be rejected?

[Jacob Young]

My team will help to clarify that so that I can respond to the hon. Lady in my closing speech, but I believe the situation is that a person will be able to hand in one of those postal votes—presumably deemed to be their own—and the others would be rejected. Only one of those postal votes would count in that situation.

[Cat Smith]

If an individual had a wodge of completed postal votes, how would they know which one was theirs and which ones they were handing in on behalf of other people?

[Jacob Young]

That would be for the individual to know themselves, but I am happy to try to bring clarity to the hon. Lady’s questions in my closing speech.

The regulations will update all relevant prescribed forms to ensure that the new limits are set out clearly for electors. That information should help electors to plan accordingly and to return their postal votes via the post where possible, and if they are handed in, they will know the permitted number that they can submit. After the poll, the returning officer will put together lists of rejected postal ballot papers, and the electoral registration officer will, where possible, write to those whose postal votes have been rejected to notify them and give them the reason, or reasons, why. That will ensure that postal voters are informed of the rejection of their postal vote and can, if necessary, act to avoid the same thing happening at future polls.

The Government’s concerns about vote harvesting are magnified further when it is carried out by a political campaigner, which is why the Act, supported by the regulations, bans such individuals from handling postal vote documents that are issued to another person, unless the political campaigner is a family member or their designated carer. The ban is supported by a new offence, which carries a maximum penalty of up to two years in prison, a fine or both. The regulations apply an equivalent new ban and related offence to other kinds of elections not directly covered by the Act, such as police and crime commissioner elections.

Currently, requirements protecting the secrecy of a person’s vote are in place for people voting in a polling station. It is essential that electors opting for an absent vote receive equal protection under the law. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental to our democracy, and the ability of voters to cast their vote freely without pressure should apply equally, whether they are in a polling station or marking their ballot at home. Therefore, it will be an offence for a person to seek information about whom a postal voter is voting for when they are completing their ballot paper or to communicate that information. However, the offence does not apply to legitimate opinion polling activity asking how a postal voter has voted or how they intend to vote. As well as protecting postal voters, the measure provides that a person voting as a proxy for another elector at an election must not communicate to a third party for whom that person voted. As with the ban on vote handling by political campaigners, the Act also makes secrecy changes to other types of election.

[Cat Smith]

I hope I am not testing the Minister’s patience, but something that struck me when reading the regulations was the lack of clarity around the definition of a political campaigner. While it might be obvious if someone walked into a polling station wearing a rosette that they were a political campaigner, if they removed that rosette, would they therefore not be a political campaigner—or is a political campaigner anyone who has delivered a leaflet for a candidate or political party or who has voiced support for a certain political party on their own private social media? I wonder how we will define “political campaigner”, because it strikes me that doing so will be particularly challenging.

[Jacob Young]

The definition of a political campaigner for the purpose of the new postal vote handling offence and the exemptions that apply to that offence is set out in the Elections Act 2022. After the debate, I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with the exact part of the Act that specifies that.

In conclusion, the measures are sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting and will reduce the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process and steal the votes of others. I hope that in setting out the details of the statutory instrument the Committee will appreciate its careful and considered design for supporting absent voters and strengthening the electoral process, which is the foundation of our democracy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I do not usually speak from the Back Benches on SIs, but as the spokesperson for the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, I have the duty of answering questions on the Floor of the House on electoral matters, and there are a couple of things I would like some clarity on, because I suspect I will be answering questions on the consequences of this legislation quite soon.

I want to begin with the consultation process on this legislation. I have been made aware that the Electoral Commission has been consulted, but that is the extent of the external bodies that have been consulted. I make a plea to the Minister to pause slightly and consult a little more widely than just the Electoral Commission, because local authorities that have to deliver elections on the ground have some strong opinions on this legislation. I certainly think there would be time, should the Minister so wish, to consult the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and other organisations that are able to provide clear insight into how we can secure the ballot, but in a way that is both secure and inclusive and does not disfranchise people. I suspect there will be people around tea tables up and down the country right now discussing how an unelected Prime Minister plucks out a failed politician and makes him Foreign Secretary. Trust in our democracy—and our democracy as a whole—is incredibly precious, and we must protect it.

The pressure on local authorities is significant. I know that, as a local government Minister, the Minister will have frequent conversations with local authorities around the country, hearing about how stretched they are, but this legislation is putting a lot of pressure on our returning officers, who are often volunteers who give up their time to staff polling stations to ensure everyone can take part. Up until now, they have been in charge of issuing ballot papers based on whether the name matches the name on the electoral roll and, more recently, on whether the ID does as well.

This legislation is about rejecting a completed ballot paper, which is a completely different requirement that we are putting on people who are often volunteers. I would also say that we are putting these duties on council reception staff, who are not trained in electoral law and did not necessarily step up to do that job thinking that this duty was part of the package. We are asking people working on reception desks in county offices up and down the country to make that assessment as well. I think that that needs to be considered, and I urge the Minister to do further consultation with local government.

On the recruitment and retention of polling staff, could the Minister say anything in his closing remarks on what he is doing to improve that? I know it is of great concern to an awful lot of individuals.

Looking to the evidence, could the Minister also tell me how many fraudulent postal ballots have been taken into, first, polling stations and, secondly, town hall counters or reception desks, and how many have been dropped into Royal Mail post boxes? That, ultimately, is the massive loophole in this legislation. Postal vote harvesting is a crime, and it is not a victimless crime, because votes being stolen is a crime. I do not dispute that, and I do not think anyone in this room would, but if someone harvesting postal votes can drop 20 or 30 completed postal packs into a Royal Mail post box and get those votes counted no bother, and we disfranchise a person with six sick relatives who turns up on the day to hand in those votes at the polling station only to realise they cannot do that, are we not taking legitimate votes from legitimate voters while allowing fraudsters to go in through the backdoor? It is like building a massive fence around the property but not putting any gates at the front.

I also want to know what will happen to postal vote packs that are dropped through council letterboxes. If it is not clear whether a postal vote has come via Royal Mail delivery or has been hand-delivered through a council letterbox, how on earth is a council officer meant to differentiate between those two things? One would require the checks and one would not. I would love to know how the Minister sees a way through that.

Finally, the best way to strengthen our democracy is to increase participation. The best way to secure every ballot is to ensure that everyone turns out to vote. If everyone turned out and voted, and voted freely and not under pressure, we would have a legitimate election in which votes could not be stolen because they would all be used. I will finish by asking the Minister what steps he is taking to strengthen democracy by increasing participation in it.

[The Chair]

To respond to all of that, I call the Minister, Jacob Young.

[Jacob Young]

Thank you for calling me, Dr Huq. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful consideration and input today. I will take this opportunity to provide further clarity on some of the points raised, including by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood just now.

On the question of whether a ballot can be handed in through a council letterbox versus into a post box, a postal voter may return their vote only by post or by handing it directly to a returning officer or their returning officer’s team. In the past, it appears that individuals were informally allowed to put their postal votes through a council letterbox as a way of returning their vote. However, where a person puts a postal vote into a council letterbox, it is not counted as having been returned by post, for example via Royal Mail. The new handing-in requirements will therefore apply to such votes. Postal votes handed in through a council letterbox cannot be treated as being in accordance with these requirements and will therefore not be counted in the election to which they relate. The postal voting statement that postal voters receive with their postal ballot paper will notify postal voters of the new requirements and caution them not to put any postal votes in a council letterbox, for this reason.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned further consultation with the Association of Electoral Administrators and others. We formally consulted the Electoral Commission on these regulations, as the hon. Lady rightly said, but we have since also engaged with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the wider election sector throughout the development of this policy and legislation, and we continue to do so as we approach implementation.

In terms of the justification for this policy, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood referred to how many examples of postal vote fraud there have been, but I do not think that low levels of prosecution for fraud should deter us from introducing changes that protect the integrity of our elections. That is exactly what we are trying to do with this policy.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister say how many prosecutions there have been? I recognise that prosecutions do not necessarily represent all the cases that have happened, but could he say how many prosecutions there have been in the last, say, three years?

[Jacob Young]

I am happy to try to write to the hon. Lady with that statistic, as I do not have it in front of me today.

During my opening remarks, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked what happens when someone hands in a number of votes that exceeds the total permitted number. To clarify, the individual will have to decide which of those postal votes is their own, and the election staff will have to take that decision at face value. If the person hands in the votes without the completed form, all the votes will be rejected—none will be accepted. I hope that provides the clarity the hon. Lady was seeking.

There has been a lot of discussion about the definition of a political campaigner. As I set out earlier, the definition of a political campaigner for the purpose of the new postal vote handling offence and the exemptions that apply to that offence are set out in section 4(2) of the Elections Act 2022. The Electoral Commission issues guidance to candidates at elections, and we expect that it will cover the new postal vote handling and handing-in requirements. We also expect that political parties will bring the new requirements to the attention of their members. We intend that the changes will be communicated to electors directly via forms, including the postal vote statement and poll cards, and through information made available to electors via gov.uk.

Additionally, information will be displayed on the Electoral Commission and other agency websites and in information provided by local authorities. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission to develop this information and awareness. Also, when a person hands in a number of votes, they are given a form that requires them to confirm whether they are a political campaigner. That should provide the clarity the hon. Lady was seeking.

Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else listening to this, including his constituents, that the package we are bringing forward will protect the river and enable it to be in a cleaner state. That is backed up by our plan for water and the further announcements we are putting in place today. What is more, I know from his correspondence that his constituents also want to see affordable housing being built, and that is what this will enable.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My constituents, whether they live in urban Lancaster or in one of the rural Wyre villages, recognise the need for housing across north Lancashire, but they also recognise the ripping up of environmental protections when they see it, and they do not like that. The Minister seems to be very concerned about small house builders who are going bust, so will she take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of her Government, who crashed the economy, pushed up inflation and made materials more expensive and who have not dealt with the land banking that is really holding back house building?

[Rachel Maclean]

What I would like to see from Members on the other side of the House is an apology for talking this country down, which they have done repeatedly. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was able to tune in to Treasury questions recently when the Chancellor set the record straight on how we now have one of the fastest-growing rates in the G7. It is this Conservative Government who will get every industry going, including the house building industry and small and large builders. We are on the side of the builders, not the blockers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

3. If he will make an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the capacity of local authorities to respond to unexpected costs arising from businesses entering liquidation.

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

The local government finance settlement of up to £59.7 billion for 2023-24 increases core spending power by 9.4%. Most of that funding is unringfenced, as local authorities are best placed to understand their local priorities. The Government also spend approximately £8 billion through targeted long-term investment in high streets and small businesses.

[Cat Smith]

Residents in the Marsh area of Lancaster, Lancaster City Council and I are concerned about the future of a skip site on the Lune industrial estate that has gone into liquidation. The cost of clean-up is higher than the value of the land. Will the Minister make time to meet me and Lancaster City Council to discuss what steps the council can take to ensure that residents know that the environment they are living in is healthy and safe?

[Dehenna Davison]

I understand that the hon. Lady is in touch with the Environment Agency about that, and that there is an ongoing investigation. Although she will appreciate that I cannot comment on any specifics of the case, I would, of course, be happy to meet her to discuss the wider issue of waste remediation. Our Government are committed to tackling waste crime: we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget by £10 million per year and tightened the law to make it harder for rogue operators to find work in the sector and easier for regulators to take action against criminals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady raises a vital issue. We recognise the importance of protecting communities from flood risk. That is why we have been clear in the national planning policy framework that areas of flood risk should be avoided and that, where that is not possible, all risks should be mitigated. That is further supported by the flood risk and coastal change guidance, which has been updated. I am very happy to discuss that in more detail with her as it affects her communities.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the introduction of voter identification requirements on voter turnout for local elections in May 2023.

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

We all know that turnout can vary significantly from election to election because of a wide range of factors, so it is not possible to model robustly the impact of a single factor on voter turnout. That was noted by the Electoral Commission during its review of the 2019 voter identification pilots. Our measures were introduced to help protect the integrity of our democracy—something that every one of us in this House should seek to do.

[Cat Smith]

Was the Department’s decision earlier this month to give the Electoral Commission an extra £1.5 million to promote voter ID made before or after the Department realised that take-up of voter authority certificates was very low?

[Dehenna Davison]

Part of the reason is to spread awareness about the new voter ID regulations. We have given that additional funding to the Electoral Commission, as well as additional funding of more than £4 million to local authorities, to promote those additional measures locally. We do not want to price anyone out of democracy, but we must protect its integrity at all costs.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [ Lords ]

Cat Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

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

Before I speak to the clauses of the Bill, I want to acknowledge all the work of my noble friend Lord Hayward, who sponsored the Bill in the other place. He is a man of tremendous knowledge of the subject, and it is a great privilege for me to sponsor the Bill in the House of Commons. I am grateful to noble Lords of all parties in the House of Lords who have worked together on the Bill. I thank Ministers and the Department, who have already been engaged with the Bill and improved it through amendment in the Lords.

The House of Commons has had an opportunity to debate the issues that the Bill seeks to address through my Westminster Hall debate on 14 December 2022, which considered the integrity of the voting process. I am grateful to the Minister, who responded then and who is with us today.

The Bill seeks to address issues of family voting, which is where an individual seeks to influence or guide another person, often a family member, when casting their vote. Democracy Volunteers, an independent organisation approved by the Electoral Commission and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has identified, in its observations of elections and its reports, that family voting is an issue of concern across the country. Despite the introduction of the secret ballot in 1872, the Electoral Commission has identified that the practice of family voting was not illegal.

This is not a party political issue. Baroness Hayman of Ullock in the other place said:

“We supported the Bill at Second Reading and continue to do so…We need to make sure that we have…an understanding of exactly what is acceptable when people vote in a polling station.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1158.]

Lord Rennard said:

“Clarity is what we need on these issues if the proper principles behind the Bill are to be enforced. I hope we will proceed very speedily with this Bill becoming law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1157.]

Clause 1 sets out the amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983. A person will commit an offence if they are with another person at a polling booth, or near another person at a polling booth, with the intent to influence that person in a particular way of voting or to refrain from voting. Importantly, the clause is drafted to avoid criminalising innocent behaviour. The intent provision ensures that someone who is with another seeking to influence a vote, whether a bystander or an innocent family member, will not be liable to conviction themselves. Particularly importantly, it also means that someone who is assisting a person who is voting, such as a formal companion of someone who is blind or a presiding officer assisting a disabled voter, is not captured by the clause. That will include those accompanied by a child or children standing together alongside a parent.

The Bill does not have an impact on elections in Scotland or Wales. I understand that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is making the devolved Administrations aware of the issues in this area and the intention to update the law.

Clause 2 provides for the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation. Elections are excepted matters and are not within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. These provisions were introduced in the House of Lords by Government amendment. Clause 3 deals with the extent, commencement and short title. The measures that I have outlined will come into force on a day to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. That will allow for the necessary training to be undertaken and preparations made.

In conclusion, the Bill will provide the measures needed to ensure that the practice of family voting no longer undermines the secret ballot. Having a clear offence in law will provide the clarity and certainty that our polling station officials and police need to ensure that the practice is stamped out, and should in many cases improve equality in our voting processes. Some 150 years after the introduction of the secret ballot, we will ensure that all people—all individuals—are free to vote as they wish in secret.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on introducing the Bill. I do not think anyone on either side of the House will dispute the importance of the secret ballot or the fact that, in a strong democracy, everyone casts their vote for the candidate or party they wish to vote for without any undue influence. Indeed, the secret ballot was a demand of the Chartists, so it is a long-standing demand. I congratulate the Member for bringing the Bill forward, but I will make a few points, and I hope to catch the Minister’s ear.

The legislation goes some way to allowing people to cast their vote for the candidate for whom they wish to vote without undue influence, but it strikes me that there is perhaps a gaping hole in the legislation in that it does not cover postal votes. I draw the Minister’s attention to the Law Commission report on the reform of electoral law, which clearly sets out the weakness in the system around postal votes. Indeed, the commission’s reports on electoral law over the years have consistently pointed out that UK electoral law is fragmented, that some of it is very old, and that it has not been brought together in one consistent piece of legislation.

That makes electoral law challenging for electoral administrators, and confusing for candidates and political parties. Frankly, I suspect that the general public have no chance of fully understanding the complexities of electoral law. The Law Commission has for a long time called on the Government to rationalise electoral law into one single piece of legislation—I suspect that these days it would have to be four pieces of legislation, because of devolution to the countries of the United Kingdom. That would go some way to assisting those of us who participate in elections to understand, abide by and uphold the law.

I am not planning to take up much of the Committee’s time. To conclude, our democracy is always strengthened by participation and encouraging people to take part in democracy. When I first saw the Bill and heard the conversation around family voting, it struck me that perhaps the Committee could send a positive message and encourage parents of children under the age of 18 to take their children with them to polling stations, to show them what is behind the mysterious door of the polling station and how to cast their votes. Then, when they come of age and are entitled to vote, they would perhaps not be daunted by the mysterious place that is a polling station. If people do not know what is behind that door, it can be intimidating to go and vote for the first time. So perhaps another positive that could come out of the Committee is that united message of encouraging parents to take young children with them, and to lift the shroud of mystery around polling stations.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. This exchange is highlighting some of the challenges around the level of prescription that needs to be in the process versus the level of discretion. That is one reason that we legislate in this place and a separate body provides interpretation.

The ultimate decision about whether things are appropriate or not appropriate in individual polling booths is down to the presiding officer in that polling booth. Presiding officers will take decisions based on the law and the guidance around the law, and the situation on the ground. I have been the elections Minister for only a few months, but I can see that there is an incredible amount of legislation and guidance in this area. That legislation and guidance provide significant prescription—it is important that there is consistency and clarity across the country when electoral events happen—but equally, guidance can never provide every piece of information for every scenario.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and will feed it into our consideration, but it will be for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and further information.

[Cat Smith]

The Minister will be glad to hear that the interventions have inspired another question from me. Will he confirm that the guidance is to be drawn up by the Electoral Commission? If so, the commission will be guided or influenced by the Hansard report of the Committee’s proceedings and the conversations we have had. However, after listening to the interventions that have been made from both sides of the Committee, it strikes me that a lot of pressure is being put on returning officers to interpret events. The Law Commission has been clear in its reports that the pressure on returning officers is increasing and the guidance is increasingly fragmented. We might be reaching a point at which the Elections Act is going to add to those complications.

Does the Minister have any concerns that encouraging people to be returning officers might be a challenge going forward, given their legal responsibilities, and the pressures of applying the law and interpreting events in polling stations? Indeed, I was not registered to vote at the last polling station I went to; I went with my partner. There were elections in Scotland and none in my part of England at the time. I think I jokingly said to him, “Vote Labour.” Can the Minster clarify that would not be a breach of the law? I am quite confident that he did not go and vote Labour.