Local Government Reorganisation

Cat Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

First, let me say that we do not take for granted concerns about the implications of the delay on the councils, councillors and officials who have been working on these schemes. We know that the pause was disruptive, and that people put a lot of work into their proposals and the transitional work in preparation for the new unitary councils. Equally, it would have been wrong had the Government not taken into account the legal status of those that were in court and not used that as an opportunity to review the programme overall, which was the decision that we announced in September. That was the right thing to do to give clarity to the programme and move forward with confidence; to ensure we were reviewing the criteria, the process, the decision making and the evidence base; and to allow us to come to fresh decisions, where needed.

From my perspective, I am playing this with an absolutely straight bat—I want to do this with integrity. It is important to say that there are no Government proposals on the table because the only proposals that a Minister can consider are those that councils themselves have submitted during the process. Our job is to ensure that we take into account local opinion and test the evidence base, the assumptions, the alignment with public service boundaries and the financial modelling. Through that work, we then make a balanced determination. By the way, there is no perfect solution for quite large parts of England that I have seen, but that does not mean we cannot reach a solution that is the best that it can be.

Our job is to make a decision in an objective way and with an open mind, which is why I cannot understand the shadow Minister criticising what is objectively the right thing to do. It would be entirely wrong, in a legal process, to predetermine the outcome we most desire and railroad that through. All the vulnerabilities with LGR that she speaks about were features of previous rounds of LGR, which the Conservative Government undertook on a fairly regular basis.

No Government decision is not open to legal challenge if somebody wants to make that challenge. On LGR, the Government found themselves in court defending previous decisions. Cumbria is a good example: the Government were taken to court, the case was heard by a judge and the Government had to explain why they came to their view. We should not pretend that a legal challenge somehow represents a fault in the system, but it does bring a pause for thought, and we have used that pause to ensure that the reorganisation is right going forward.

On the question of how we will proceed, the approach I am setting out does not have the tranching up of areas that we had previously, so quite deliberately, we do not have tranches 1, 2 and 3. However, we are going to work through authorities as quickly as possible. The commitment that we have made is that, rather than waiting for an artificial date—a particular point in time—if we can come forward with a few earlier, we will do that, so we do not have to wait for the whole programme to be confirmed later in the process.

Finally, on the point about costs and how much has been incurred, there are different ways of looking at that. There are the costs of producing the proposals, but they are not abortive because those proposals are real today and they will be considered as part of the new process. Those are not wasted costs at all; they are the normal costs that are incurred in reorganisation. Then there are the costs of transfers and, once the decision is made, preparing the ground to move to the new shadow unitary authorities, but those costs are required whatever decision is made in whatever county, so that is not abortive work either.

However, we accept that the decision to pause and to ask staff in particular areas to stop working on the proposals has led to a cost being incurred by those authorities that would not have been incurred had we not decided to pause the programme. On that basis, we have decided to release the money that I have set out today, and I think that is the right thing to do. We believe strongly in central and local government working in partnership together and being respectful to each other. If councils say that they have incurred costs that they would not otherwise have incurred, it is right for the Government to say that we are willing to meet them halfway.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, but there remains some confusion in Lancashire, so I hope he is able to clarify a few things. Moving away from the different tranches suggests that there is now no timetable for what might happen in Lancashire. Councillors are asking me for clarity on a timetable for Lancashire. I also seek reassurance that the decision means that Lancaster will not lose its city status in any part of the reorganisation, and that the building blocks with which we are making the reorganisation do not have to be strictly borough councils. For example, Wyre borough council, which was already an amalgamation of other councils, might want to look in different directions.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the representations on Lancashire’s reorganisation and on devolution that she has made over a long period of time. I accept that we have not set out a list-by-list, county-by-county timetable showing exactly when reorganisation will come, but we have said that we will conclude the considerations in the new year. Wherever the counties find themselves in the programme, when it is eventually developed, they will know one way or the other in that February to March period, and we will work through them as and when. My point was that if we are in a position to announce them earlier, we should do that rather than keeping areas waiting unnecessarily—that is the idea of the approach that we are taking.

My hon. Friend correctly makes a point about Lancaster’s city status, and that applies to cities across the counties that are in scope. It would be absolutely wrong if a city risked losing its status just because its city status is aligned to a local authority that is being abolished rather than to a geographical area. I can give an absolute assurance that even if we have to introduce new legislation to preserve that status, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that no city loses its city status through reorganisation.

Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady expresses it very well, and I agree with her assessment entirely. It is the age and vulnerability of many—the “anything for the quiet life” factor—that is being exploited to the max.

I want to mention specifically the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—although in this campaign he is very much my hon. Friend. We have been working together very closely on issues relating to Cognatum. He has Mytchett Heath in his constituency, and the issues being raised by his residents mirror those being raised by mine, and it is not a pretty picture.

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

I, too, am very much aware of this issue. In my constituency I have a property called Williamson Court, which is run by McCarthy & Stone, and everything that colleagues are saying sounds very familiar. Does the right hon. Gentleman have any sense of the scale of this issue right across the country, because it strikes me that we represent very different parts of the UK?

[Simon Hoare]

I think it manifests itself in all quarters of the United Kingdom, but not all companies are culpable. My other campaign is on the regulation of the funeral sector; it is the rotten apples in the barrel that give the whole sector a bad name. It is on them that attention should be focused.

Park Home Owners

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). Demographically, Lancaster and Wyre has a very similar number of park homes to his constituency, and I have discussed them with him on a number of occasions, which shows the cross-party consensus that what is going on in this industry is nothing short of a scandal.

Colleagues may have seen my constituency in the “Panorama” documentary on park homes in 2024, in which Wyre country park featured. I pay tribute to the two brave park residents who spoke out and were interviewed, but that did not come consequence-free. We have talked a lot about bullying and intimidation, and sadly, in August 2025, both their park homes burned down on the same day, in broad daylight, 90 minutes apart from each other. The cause was never found—I will leave that hanging, and I pay tribute to them.

There are a great many park home sites that are well run, and probably a lot of park home owners are listening to this and thinking, “Actually, I live somewhere that is pretty good.” But unfortunately, the rogue operators are now giving the entire industry a bad name, which is why we need to take action.

I agree entirely with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) at the beginning of the debate and I congratulate him on securing it. In the limited time that I have, I will take the opportunity to put on record my concerns about one particular site in my constituency, called Havenlyn residential park.

I have been approached by dozens of residents and park home owners on that site. The issues of bullying, intimidation and rules being changed without any consultation are alarming. In the past couple of days, I have heard from one of them that the terms and conditions of park residents have now been changed, so that if someone is selling a park home on that site, they cannot sell it to anyone younger than them. Ultimately, that will force many into an impossible situation, because, given the nature of park homes, older people live on these sites and there are issues when they are looking to sell—they might be towards the end of their life, or perhaps the previous owner had died and left it as an inheritance to their children, which, as I have heard, just ends up becoming a burden.

In the remaining seconds that I have left, I will ask the Minister these questions. Can he do any more to empower local authorities, which are meant to be regulating and enforcing regulations? Do they need stronger statutory duties or more resources, because at the moment Wyre council does not seem able to protect residents in my constituency?

Representation of the People Bill

Cat Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake.

As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.

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

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.

The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.

The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Those of us who are in this Chamber on a Thursday morning know that we sometimes have questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission then, and I say that because in the last Parliament, as an Opposition MP, I was a spokesperson for that Committee. It is the only time in the parliamentary week when Members pose questions to an opposition Member to answer. That is an important point, because it highlights the fact that the Electoral Commission is not answerable to Government, of any colour; rather, it is answerable to Parliament, because it is a regulator like no other. It regulates politics, and it therefore holds a very special status.

I also served in the last Parliament on the Elections Bill Committee, and I saw there what happens when political parties use legislation for political advantage. I am really pleased to be able to say that the Bill before us contains many of the important democratic principles that I have been speaking about for the last 11 years in this House, and I am excited to vote for it on Second Reading this evening.

Among the Bill’s measures is the expansion of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some quite bizarre things said about that so far this evening, some of which were really quite remarkable. The Bill also includes bank cards among the forms of ID that can be used to access voting. For those who were not in the last Parliament to see the Elections Bill go through and become the Elections Act 2022, let me say that time and again, Conservative Ministers told us at the Dispatch Box that if people need ID to collect a parcel at the post office, they should need ID to vote at a polling station; but if we want to collect a parcel at a post office, we can use a bank card for that, so this is completely in line with the arguments made for the introduction of ID, and I would expect the official Opposition to support expanding the relevant ID to include bank cards.

It is important that we come together on upholding confidence in democracy, because confidence in democracy is not very high in this country right now. That is why it is so important that expanding the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds goes hand in hand with working with our colleagues in education to ensure that those young citizens are equipped to vote, and have the necessary support. Already, young citizens in Wales and Scotland have the right to vote, and bringing English and Northern Irish citizens into line makes logical sense.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we are conducting an inquiry on votes at 16 to see what support young people will need to make the most of the vote, when they get it. The most important thing that young people are telling us is that they are concerned that their teachers do not feel confident enough to lead discussions in the classroom around politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support not just our young people, but our teachers, and enable conversations about democracy, the voting process and citizenship?

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. His APPG sounds very interesting. I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard those points, and I agree with them.

In my remaining time, I want to address the need to protect our democracy from foreign interference. In cleaning up politics, we need to address specific weaknesses identified. There is a very good blog by Professor Alan Renwick at the University College London constitution unit, which I would love to quote from, but my time is quite limited. He highlights that while the Bill introduces stricter eligibility criteria for company donors, there are still huge gaps regarding cryptocurrency and the potential for illicit funds to bypass traditional checks. We should be bold enough to start talking about a donation cap, too. There is no plausible argument against introducing caps on political donations to prevent a small number of wealthy people from exerting disproportionate influence.

The changes made in the last piece of legislation that went through this House on electoral law have left a huge vulnerability. That legislation abolished the 15-year rule we used to have, whereby citizens who had lived outside the UK for 15 years or longer lost the right to vote and to donate to UK politics. When that rule was abolished, there was no way for elections officers in councils up and down the country to verify that people claiming to have lived at an address in another constituency in 1976 actually did so, because those records were not kept past 15 years, as of course there was no point. Now, there are permissible donors to the UK electoral system who claim to have lived in the UK, and we have no way of proving whether they did. That is a huge vulnerability, and I urge those on the Front Bench to look again at that, and at closing that potential back door that we have left open to foreign money interfering in UK politics. We are an outlier in having this rule; in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, those who leave the country lose the right to vote after one year.

I would like to finish by saying that many colleagues have made the case for proportional representation, and this Bill would have been a great opportunity to set up a commission to look at all the different options that would be available to make sure that people feel that their vote counts, and that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for squeezing me in, Dr Murrison. In the limited time that I have, I want to put on record that the experiences of my constituents in Preesall are echoed by communities right across the country, as we have heard in the debate. Preesall saw a proposal for a quarry to extract sand and gravel. Thankfully, we are in a similar situation to that of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as the quarry application has been turned down, but we are now waiting to see whether the developer will appeal.

The community feels that it has all the necessary arguments on HGV movements on narrow country lanes and health data from the Over Wyre Medical Centre on the proportion of residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, who could be adversely affected. The proposed quarry site is within a kilometre of a primary school, and there is another school just 2 km away. We know that when children’s lungs are developing, they are more vulnerable to the kind of things that will be floating around in the atmosphere, with the potential health implications. The health issues combine with having HGVs on narrow country roads and the implications of unstable ground and an area historically associated with localised flooding.

[Paul Holmes]

It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point—it does have an economic impact on the area. Preesall is located in a beautiful corner of Lancashire, with the Wyre estuary on one side and Morecambe bay on the other. Who will want to visit this beauty corner of Lancashire if the landscape is littered with quarries? It will have an impact on our tourism offer.

All in all, this issue is concerning to my local residents, and I want to put those concerns on record today. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); I know he has been pursuing this debate for a long time. When I supported his application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was unsure where my local application would end up. While I hope this is the end of it for my constituents, the reality is that we do not know. Current planning applications for quarries are not fit for purpose.

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.