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.

Voter Identification

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been voter ID in Northern Ireland for 20 years, and it has run successfully. There is absolutely no reason why that will not be the case in the United Kingdom as a whole.

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

I agree with the Minister that the integrity of our democracy is incredibly important, but I suggest that the best way to strengthen security at the ballot box is to increase turnout, which would reduce voter fraud.

Two million people do not hold valid ID, and will not hold it in May. I remind the Minister that access to photo ID is a luxury and, in a cost of living crisis, the reality is that many of our constituents cannot afford the luxury of paying £82 for a passport or around £40 for a driving licence. They are being priced out of the ballot box. I urge him to look again at the list. After the May elections, will he make a statement to the House outlining what actually happened and how many people were turned away?

[Lee Rowley]

One of our reasons for offering a free voter authority certificate, which 21,000 people have already taken up, is to address precisely that question.

Draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.

I welcome the Minister to his new position, and I warn him that he might be hearing an awful lot from me when it comes to bids for the high streets in Fleetwood and Lancaster. Our high streets have suffered immensely in the last couple of years, and hospitality in particular has suffered, with lockdowns restricting businesses’ ability to open. Many have been very innovative and looked at different ways of trading. One of the things that I have been pleased to see is the burst of al fresco dining, especially in the Lancaster part of my constituency, where Dalton Square, which was a big thoroughfare for traffic, suddenly became pedestrianised, with tables and chairs put out.

That was all very pleasant, but I do want to raise a few issues with the Minister on behalf of my constituents. I have two particular constituents in mind. The first uses a guide dog, because he is blind. He has raised with me the particular issues with street furniture on Lancaster high streets. He is working with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Guide Dogs. I appreciate that this is literally day one in the job for the Minister, but what consultation has he managed to have and will he commit to working with these charities to ensure that, when legislation is proposed, it is inclusive of all members of our community?

The second constituent I have in mind is a woman who uses a mobility scooter and recently came to one of my Fleetwood surgeries. She raised the issue of street furniture in Lord Street in Fleetwood. Again, this is not just about our constituents who are blind or partially sighted; it is also about our constituents with mobility scooters, and, I suspect, an awful lot of people pushing wide pushchairs and wheelchairs. It can become something of an obstacle course to pass through our city and town centres. What engagement has the Minister had with the broader disability charities and what consultation might he be willing to engage in?

I broadly welcome the changes. It is welcome to see the hospitality sector in many of our constituencies begin to get back on its feet. The best thing we can do to support our hospitality sector is to put more money in people’s pockets. If the Minister could have conversations with his colleagues in other Departments about making the uplift in universal credit permanent rather than removing it, that would go a long way to supporting our hospitality sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Will Ministers join me in recognising and commending the work of Ellel parish councillor Lisa Corkerry? She is never afraid to don the marigolds, grab the litter pickers and clean up Galgate. Lisa would like to know when the Government are going to provide adequate funds for local authorities such that she can put her efforts into making her community better rather than clearing up the mess left behind by others.

[Michael Gove]

The local councillor the hon. Lady mentions sounds like an absolutely brilliant champion for her local community. I would love to know more, particularly about what we can do to help in practical terms, and I look forward to working with her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I do.

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

My constituents in Fleetwood hear about levelling up an awful lot, but they are not really seeing the benefits of it. Applications by Wyre Borough Council for the future high streets fund and the levelling-up fund have been knocked back, so can the Minister tell my Fleetwood constituents when they can expect to get this levelling up?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I am more than happy to talk to Lancashire County Council and, indeed, to the hon. Lady about how we can ensure that levelling-up funds and UK shared prosperity and other funds flow to her constituents.

Budget Resolutions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I will keep my comments on the Budget specifically to youth work. I do so for two reasons. The first, more positive reason is that this week is national Youth Work Week, and I put on record my thanks to the youth workers in my constituency and across the country, who do a tremendous job in safeguarding, caring for and looking after our young people and guiding them through adolescence. Let us face it: adolescence is a difficult enough thing at the best of times, and in recent years we have not had the best of times, with covid, with lockdown and with education interrupted.

Secondly, youth work offers a good example of how this is a smoke and mirrors Budget. To give some context, youth work in England has seen a 73% cut in the past 11 years. That has had consequences. It has seen 940 youth centres closed and 4,500 qualified youth workers no longer working in frontline youth work—a figure that rises to about 13,000 if we take youth and community workers together. The National Youth Agency estimates that about £1 billion less per year is being spent on youth work than a decade ago.

I feel incredibly passionate about youth work, so I was glad two years ago when the Government announced a £500 million youth investment fund. The only trouble is that not a penny of that has been spent in the past two years. When the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and announced £560 million for youth funding, I was immediately suspicious, because I had already heard about £500 million for the youth investment fund, which we had not seen a penny of in two years. It is no surprise that the £560 million that has just been announced included that £500 million, so we could argue it was just a £60 million funding announcement. However, it gets worse, because when we read the small print in this Budget, we discover that the National Citizen Service funding is included in that money. Once we start crunching the numbers, we soon realise that the Budget includes a £450 million cut to youth services.

Our young people will get £450 million a year less under this Budget, yet the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and announced a £560 million investment. That is smoke and mirrors; it is deceiving to the young people and youth workers around the country, who have had a really difficult time over the past two years. For this to come during national Youth Work Week and at a time when the NYA has done research proving that young people in more affluent areas are twice as likely as those in poorer areas to have access to a youth centre and a youth worker shows that the Budget is not about levelling up; it is about smoke and mirrors.

If we are to do politics better, let us play with a straight bat and be honest: this Budget contains a funding cut to our young people. It is deceiving for the Chancellor to stand at the Dispatch Box and say it is an investment when it is quite clearly the opposite. I call on Government Members to be more straightforward with the voters, particularly with our young people. We need young people to engage in our democracy. When politicians stand up and say one thing, but once we look at the small print we discover that it is another thing, it gives our young people a sense that politics is not for them.

The consequences of that are far more than the loss of youth centres or youth workers—I fear that it will lead to a loss of trust among a generation of young people who have already faced 11 years of austerity and cuts to youth services, when they see further cuts. In youth services, 11 years is an entire generation. Given the scale of cuts we have seen to youth work and the 50% decline in youth work degrees, we know it will take an awful lot to build back a sector that is on its knees. We owe it to our young people to be straight with them and to be clear that this Budget contains a huge cut to our youth services.

Elections Bill (Instruction)

Cat Smith Excerpts

Instruction
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister is telling us that we will have time to scrutinise and debate the amendment he is proposing tonight, but he might not be aware that this Bill has already started; we have already had Second Reading, where all Members of the House were able to debate the merits or otherwise of the contents of the Bill, and the Bill Committee has already met four times. We have already finished our evidence taking. I say to the Minister that on page 114 of the transcript of the Committee he can see that, as a member of that Committee, I made a point of order to the Chair, asking whether or not we could take evidence from witnesses on the issue of electoral systems. The Chair was very clear in saying that that was out of the scope of the Bill and so Committee members were not able to take evidence on electoral systems. So I have to question why this was not included already in the legislation. On 16 March, the Home Secretary announced that the Government planned to change the voting system for all PCCs, combined authority mayors and the Mayor of London from the supplementary vote system to first past the post. If the Government had wanted this to be in the Elections Bill, surely they should have put it in the Bill from the beginning, allowing Members to scrutinise it on Second Reading and in Committee.

The supplementary voting system that is used for all those different types of elections—

[Patrick Grady]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we should find a way, through the usual channels, to make sure that the Bill Committee can take some supplementary evidence and we can schedule in some additional sessions so that, assuming the instruction is passed tonight, the Committee can have that level of scrutiny that has so far been denied to the House on Second Reading?

[Cat Smith]

I find myself in agreement with my fellow Bill Committee member; I hope that the usual channels will find time for extra evidence sessions so that the Committee can be informed on the different types of electoral systems.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

On PCC elections, is my hon. Friend as staggered as I am to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland, Steve Turner, who was elected earlier this year, was sacked in the early 2000s for systematic theft of merchandise from his then employer, Safeway supermarket, at its Norton store? Does she agree that it is totally untenable for someone who was engaged in such criminal behaviour to hold the position of PCC and that he must resign from his role with immediate effect?

[Cat Smith]

I am as staggered as my hon. Friend to learn that the Conservative party’s PCC for Cleveland was sacked for theft from a Safeway supermarket. I would certainly agree that it is totally untenable for a criminal to hold the position of PCC, and if what my hon. Friend has shared with the House tonight is true, I would expect a resignation and some kind of by-election for that PCC role with immediate effect.

Turning back to the instruction, the supplementary vote system has been used to elect the Mayor of London since 2000, so it is certainly not a new system of voting. The instruction on the Order Paper suggests that it is somehow something that has come to light since the Bill has been published, but if we have been using this system of voting for the London Mayor for well over two decades, it seems inconsistent for the Government not to have been able to see fit to put this in the Bill before this late stage.

The Minister said that this measure was in his party’s manifesto, and indeed the 2017 manifesto stated:

“We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner…elections.”

However, if he reads his party’s 2019 manifesto, as I have done, he will not see it anywhere there. So this was not in the last manifesto and it has not been in the Bill since the beginning. Is this not just another example of Tory arrogance and some kind of apparent allergy to scrutiny and accountability? This Bill has been utterly chaotic and it seems increasingly likely that we are going to get a new Minister on the Bill Committee, although we do not yet know who it will be, and a new Government Whip mid-Committee. To top it all off, we are now not entirely sure whether the Bill sits within the Cabinet Office or the newly renamed “Department for Levelling Up”. So let me level with the Minister tonight: this instruction motion stinks of gerrymandering and we will vote against it.

Bay Local Authority in North Lancashire and South Cumbria

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a proposal for the Bay local authority in North Lancashire and South Cumbria.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I called for today’s debate because I believe that the current local government reorganisation process is being carried out in the wrong way and conducted at the wrong time. It is a rushed process, which councils are responding to at a time when they are also dealing with the pandemic. The reorganisation decisions that are about to be made will have a lasting impact on the Lancaster part of my constituency and how it is governed for generations to come. After all, it is 47 years since the last major review of local government in our area, which tore up the historic county of Lancashire and, I believe, got it wrong when removing Lancashire over the sands—that is, Barrow-in-Furness—from the rest of Lancashire. It could be another 47 years before we return to this topic, so we must get it right this time, both by creating effective structures and respecting cultural identities.

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in his response to the debate why Cumbria was invited to put forward proposals and Lancashire was not. In September 2020, Lancashire County Council submitted a request to the Government to be in tranche 1. By consulting only on Cumbria and not Lancashire, the Government have limited the opportunity to develop solutions that work across both areas, despite their repeated claims to want to enable locally-led solutions.

When the consultation opened in February, it was unclear on the consultation website whether residents in Lancaster were entitled to respond at all, because the consultation only mentioned Cumbria, despite one of the options involving Lancaster. I am grateful that, thanks to the lobbying of Councillor Lizzi Collinge, some of the wording was finally amended a few weeks ago. However, it is still unacceptable that, without those changes, Lancaster may have faced a once-in-a-generation change in governance without its inhabitants being meaningfully consulted.

The consultation website is also difficult to browse, loaded with jargon and confusing, particularly for my Lancaster constituents. I am that the Minister will tell me that the consultation meets the minimum standards required by the relevant legislation, but let us be frank: a poorly designed consultation, rushed through in a pandemic, is no way to make a decision of this magnitude, and nor is it the locally-led, bottom-up process that the Government claim it is.

In Lancaster, there is a long-held view that cross-county options for local government should be considered. As I have said, the current county boundaries were imposed in 1974 and do not reflect local geography or local identity. I support Lancaster City Council’s wish to work with neighbouring councils in Morecambe Bay to develop a proposal for a new council. I am grateful to our local councillors in Lancaster and south Cumbria and in particular to the leader of Lancaster City Council, Councillor Dr Erica Lewis, for her work to encourage people in Lancaster to engage with the consultation and consider the options.

Joint working between Lancaster, Barrow and South Lakeland is very well developed in the Morecambe Bay area, which is already recognised as the functional economic geography of the area, with a footprint for public services such as the NHS that makes sense. The Bay councils developed their proposal in record time. Despite the time constraints, they have put together a strong proposal and demonstrated strong local support for it. I hope the Government will give the Bay proposal proper consideration.

However, the approach so far from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does not seem even-handed. The legislation, and the invitation, for local government reorganisation proposals expressly allow for a type C proposal from councils in neighbouring county areas, yet Lancaster has not been treated as a full participant in the process.

The process that the Government are following is flawed. A type C proposal is a legal proposal, yet the consultation treats Lancaster City Council, Lancaster’s residents and local organisations differently from their equivalents in other areas where proposals are being put forward. I would like the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the views of Lancaster residents will be given equal weight in this process.

The Bay offers a positive vision of investment, skills and jobs growth, tackling the climate emergency, and protecting and enhancing natural resources, infrastructure such as roads, flood defences and housing, and services that meet real need across adult and children’s services. The Bay area has 13,000 businesses, with 18,000 jobs in advanced manufacturing, 4,300 in agriculture and 25,000 in tourism and hospitality. Some 30 million people visit Lancaster and south Cumbria, contributing £2 billion to the economy. It has five major wind farms, oil and gas operations, and two major nuclear power stations. It also has two universities, both already effectively co-operating across the Bay.

The Bay has the capacity to tangibly improve people’s lives and is a place that works in the real economy. Council spending would be on the same footprint as the NHS, providing clarity and focus. The proposal addressed previously missed opportunities to create a council structure that reflects the economic, geographic and population realities of the area. This proposal will strengthen rather than undermine people’s identity and affinity with the area.

Changing administrative borders does not change people’s identity and affinities. The people of Lancaster will always be Lancastrians. Many people in Barrow, despite being administratively in Cumbria, consider themselves to be Lancastrians too—indeed, as I was born in Barrow, I very much consider myself a Lancastrian—but they are also from the Bay and from the north-west.

What will change is locally focused services, with decisions made close to where people live, and a greater, more meaningful role for communities and town and parish councils if they want it. Throughout this process, the three councils of the Bay have said that they want young people to be part of shaping what is in their community and their future. To secure a job with long-term prospects and find a home that they can afford, some young people feel that they need to move away from the Bay. I want every young person to feel that they can have the opportunities and the future that they want in Lancaster and across the Bay. Can the Minister reassure me that the views of young people will be considered in making a decision on local government reorganisation?

This should not be about party politics. The Bay proposal is based on the natural affinity of the three councils and the communities they serve. It transcends party politics locally and is based on the long-term interests of the people who live, work and invest in the Bay area, not short-term political advantage—a sentiment also reflected in the surveys conducted as part of the consultation.

I was disappointed to see the Lancashire County Council response clearly split on political lines. In weighing this as a consultation response, I hope the Government will reflect on the fact that, although Lancashire County Council is divided on these issues, there is strong cross-party support in Lancaster, Barrow and South Lakeland. Lancashire County Council Conservatives are completely wrong to claim that the Bay does not enjoy local support. The Government will see in the consultation process that there is still very strong local support. This has already been evidenced by independent polling. This is not a Labour proposal, or a Lib Dem or Conservative proposal. It has been supported by parties on all sides in all three districts, because they recognise that it is the best solution for the communities across Morecambe Bay, and it is not hard to understand why. We are a community tied by history, family, work and education.

The Bay would allow councils in the remainder of two-tier Lancashire to consider their own future, develop new authorities and move to a position where all of Lancashire has a single-tier local government. The Bay also creates an opportunity for a new north Cumbria council. With an affinity with neighbours in the north of England and southern Scotland, there is potential for enhanced borderlands working.

The Government have set out three tests for proposals. I will address each and set out why I believe the Bay meets them. On the first test, the Bay will improve local government and service delivery, and provide stronger leadership and more sustainable structures. There is a public service imperative to focus on what public services need to do to respond to today’s society and needs. The Bay proposal is about reform as much as reorganisation. Mature joint working between the three councils and alignment with health services is a strong basis for creating the new council.

On the second test, the Bay has strong local support. It is the only proposal on the table that has very clear local support from the public. It is not clear how the assessment of local support will be made by the Department. Can the Minister reassure me that he will not place the self-interested opposition of Conservative councillors from the other end of Lancashire above the wishes of local people in the Bay area?

The third test relates to population. The Bay is within the range proposed by the Government and has a credible geography. There is obviously a lot of work to do to develop the detailed plans for any new councils that are created, whether that is bringing together current district services or county services. There is also work to do with the police and fire authorities to develop arrangements. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will not put the district-led proposals, and specifically a type C proposal, at an immediate disadvantage? It would make nonsense of the invitation for a type C option if the Government were to rule it out on the alignment of police and fire authorities. There must be a pragmatic approach, and it must be recognised that there is an opportunity to work out new arrangements in the transition to a new authority. Those could be worked out locally and, indeed, the Government can intervene if they wish to.

Local government reorganisation must be about more than rearranging the deckchairs. On issues such as social care, public health, climate change and youth services, more of the same will not be good enough. The Department commissioned a research report from Cardiff University that concluded that size is not a detriment with respect to performance, and the implications for performance should be evaluated in the context of the reform proposed for each local area. The Bay is a chance to shake things up and to do things differently, on a geographic footprint that makes sense for services and local people.

Finally I want to say a word about democracy, which should be at the heart of the discussion. I agree with the Government that our current two-tier local government arrangement does not work. Routinely people do not know which council provides which services, who they should hold accountable for them, or where they should turn for help. I assist thousands of constituents with their issues each year as their MP, and I feel their pain. A change to unitary local government is welcome and in principle it has broad political support, because it would simplify services for residents and businesses. It would vastly improve the accountability of councils and councillors, and by doing so it would improve local people’s ability to understand and have a say in decisions that affect them. However, that sense of connection to local government will be realised only if the authority reflects the local identity and local patterns of living and working.

I believe that only the Bay will deliver that for Lancaster, South Lakeland and Barrow. Unlike proposals for county unitaries it operates on a scale that works, and unlike such options as greater Blackpool it represents real geography that will centre all the residents in decision making. The feeling is clear, from surveys, opinion polling and representations that have been made to me. Residents and businesses in Lancaster say that they would feel distant from a one Lancashire or greater Blackpool authority. The Bay would give leadership that local people would identify with, and enhance local democracy rather than weakening it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful Members of the House on this subject, which he and I have discussed many times. Fewer than one in five children from a Gypsy, Roma or Traveller background meets the expected standard for English and maths at GCSE. I am firmly committed to delivering a cross-Government strategy to improve life chances in Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and, as my hon. Friend says, to encourage greater integration, particularly in education. In the depths of the pandemic, my Department has invested £400,000 in education and training programmes for GRT children, so that they can receive extra tuition and catch up on lost learning.

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

In November, the Public Accounts Committee published a damning report on the towns fund, stating that the selection process was not impartial and was almost certainly subject to political interference from Ministers. Wyre Council’s strong bid for the future high streets funding for Fleetwood, which I supported, was rejected last month. Was that selection process, which saw Fleetwood’s town centre miss out, also not impartial?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady misrepresents even what the Public Accounts Committee had to say about the towns fund; I urge her to re-read what it said and not to be so liberal with her language. I can assure her that the high streets fund used a 100% competitive process, and Ministers had no say in choosing the places selected.

If fault lies anywhere, I am afraid it lies with the hon. Lady’s local council, because despite our giving it hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce plans, and despite the no doubt great need in the community, it failed to put forward proposals that met the Treasury’s basic benefit-cost ratio value-for-money standard. That is a great pity. The people of her local community have missed out, but if the blame lies anywhere, it lies with her local council.

Towns Fund

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are looking to the shadow Secretary of State as the guardian of value for money and the Exchequer, I think the public will be sorely disappointed. It is probably about time that he spoke out about the activities of Croydon Council. Croydon Council’s mismanagement of public money has been, frankly, catastrophic and shocking. Who will lose out as a result? It will be the people of Croydon, who will see their services reduced and will have to deal for years to come with the toxic legacy of a Labour council that the shadow Secretary of State has fastidiously supported.

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

Who authorised the 18 taxpayer-funded adverts that were placed on Facebook by the Secretary of State’s Department and were subsequently removed by Facebook?

[Robert Jenrick]

All spending by the Department is approved, by definition, by the Department, through the accounting officer and the permanent secretary.