Lobbying of Government Committee
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
I welcome the chance to contribute to this Opposition day debate. I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that it is appropriate and possible to do so virtually.
First, may I add my own tribute to those made earlier this week to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, whose commitment to the service of this country and to the highest possible standards of conduct was exemplary?
During the extraordinary challenge of covid-19, the Government have worked with people and businesses of all sorts—from private citizens to key workers, from our brilliant small and medium-sized enterprises to multi- nationals. In that monumental effort to protect the public and save lives across the country, civil servants across Government, working under incredible pressure, have achieved extraordinary things.
Even away from times of crisis, this country can be proud of the standards that we uphold. In Transparency International’s 2020 index, which ranks countries, the United Kingdom was ranked above close European neighbours such as France and Ireland in 11th place. We are the first G20 country to establish a public register of domestic company beneficial ownership and the first G7 country to undergo an IMF fiscal transparency evaluation.
This Government value such reputation and will always uphold it. As hon. Members heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say just now, we are concerned about some of what has emerged in recent weeks. Most of what this complex motion proposes is already being done. Indeed, as the policy Minister responsible, it is perfectly sensible for me to respond today on behalf of my Department. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has shadowed me before—10 years ago—and it is good to see her again today in her place.
The motion seeks to establish in Standing Orders a Select Committee with a remit so wide-ranging as to cut across Parliament’s existing Committees and independent bodies that have responsibilities in this area. Let us take the elements part by part. Looking at the effectiveness of existing legislation on lobbying, the Government are already doing this and I shall explain more in a second. On the Greensill affair, an independent review was announced this week, before this motion was laid, and will be effected. On transparency measures and the ACOBA framework, the Cabinet Office is already working to strengthen the former and supporting the reforms of my noble Friend Lord Pickles to bolster the latter. We are opposing the motion today because it seeks to duplicate the work that is already in the gift of Parliament and its Committees and, as I will set out now, work that is already being undertaken by the Government.
Starting with the effectiveness of existing lobbying legislation, we are currently conducting post-legislative scrutiny of part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, which we all know as the lobbying Act. It is looking precisely at the scope and effectiveness of that legislation. The hon. Lady did not mention that—not one whit. That legislation introduced a new statutory register of consultant lobbyists and a requirement that those undertaking paid lobbying on behalf of any third party must register and make clear who they are representing to Ministers and permanent secretaries.
The requirement for consultant lobbyists to declare that work complements the system of self-regulation that lobbyists also adhere to through professional codes of conduct. It makes transparent otherwise hidden lobbying. It remains an important part of the framework, filling an accountability and transparency gap that existed prior to that point. We think that it operates effectively but, as I have said, we are looking at whether further improvements can be made, as is best practice through post-legislative scrutiny. Once that work is complete, we intend to deliver a memorandum to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further scrutiny. Would it really be constructive for these workstreams to be undertaken in parallel by separate Committees, potentially cutting across one another, sowing confusion? We think that it would not.
While the creation of Select Committees is of course a matter for the House, there are already relevant Committees in Parliament with the powers and capacity to do such work as is proposed. I note that the Chair, and indeed the prior Chair, of PACAC have already spoken today. That Committee is responsible for the examination of the quality and standards of administration across the Government. In this Parliament, it has already undertaken relevant inquiries. Indeed, it has also called the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to give evidence. It has the powers to send for persons, papers and records, and to report to the House—the powers proposed for the new Committee—so I question the necessity of an additional Committee. Indeed, that additional proposed Committee would also cost a quarter of a million pounds.
Her Majesty’s Government has a full framework in place to ensure that public money is spent efficiently, and that those who serve as stewards of those public resources act in accordance with the highest standards and in the public interest. The use of public money is overseen by the Treasury and, of course, Parliament, and the use of public position and information is overseen by the Cabinet Office and rightly held to account by Parliament and the public. Furthermore, all those who work across the public sector are expected to maintain the ethical standards embodied in the seven principles of public life, which underpin the respective codes for Ministers, for the civil service and for special advisors, as well as the code of conduct for board members of public bodies. That requirement to act with integrity means that public office holders must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work, and all holders of public office must declare and resolve any interests.
We are not complacent, neither about the scale of this challenge nor about taking action where necessary to uphold the public’s faith in what we should all stand for. Since 2010, under the coalition and then under Conservative Governments, we have significantly increased transparency on the workings of Government—which the public should rightly be able to expect—from publishing contracts and details of spending, salaries, tenders and meetings to launching that statutory register of consultant lobbyists, far more than ever published under the last Labour Government. This Government have banned the once-endemic practice of Government quangos hiring lobbyists to lobby the Government. They have ensured that taxpayer-funded Government grants are not then used to lobby the Government themselves. They have introduced greater transparency of trade unions and campaign finance controls on third parties seeking to lobby in our elections, so when the Government are being held to account—as is right—it is because a tougher regime of transparency has been in place for over a decade, and is now the norm.
We are going further still to uphold the covenant of trust with the public. I have already touched on the Government’s review of lobbying legislation. In addition, we are reviewing and improving business appointment rules, which I will return to in a moment or two. However, as the hon. Member for Leeds West dwelt upon at some length, the Cabinet Office this week has announced a review on behalf of the Prime Minister into the role in Government of Greensill Capital, the finance company that went into administration last month. The review will look at the development and use of supply chain finance associated activities in Government, and specifically the role of Greensill, including how contracts were secured and business representatives engaged with Government.
The review will be wide-ranging, and will also consider the issues raised by my noble Friend Lord Pickles regarding Mr Bill Crothers’ role at Greensill Capital. The public can be assured that Mr Nigel Boardman, the senior lawyer leading the review, who will pause his activities as a non-executive director at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for the duration, will have full access to the people who were in government at the relevant time and who made the relevant decisions. I would add that the information that has already emerged in recent weeks about Greensill Capital has done so in some part because the system in place is doing its job, and ensuring support for transparency and accountability.
I will not go into great detail further about recent events, because that inquiry will do so, but two further things can be said now about lobbying policy. First, the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists conducted an investigation into Mr David Cameron’s activities, and has confirmed that those did not require registration under the current legislative framework. For good reason, these rules apply to consultant lobbyists, who may seek to influence policy making on behalf of a third party who would otherwise be hidden. Mr Cameron was working openly in-house as an employee. To complement this law, the meetings of Ministers and permanent secretaries with external organisations are published on a quarterly basis and are made available on gov.uk. That data describes both the purpose of the meeting and the names of the organisations or individuals who are met. That is very important. Regulation must of course balance the need for transparency by lobbyists while not preventing engagement by the voluntary and private sectors.
The second thing is to engage in the politics of today’s Opposition day, although it is a great shame to do so in a period of national mourning. The hon. Member for Leeds West failed to say that Labour now wants to repeal the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. This was in its manifesto, alongside repealing the Trade Union Act 2016. Who is not to say that the Labour party would simply give favours to the union barons who bankroll it? After the EU referendum, Labour MPs called for tighter controls on third-party campaigning, but their official policy is to rip up these lobbying laws. Indeed, in 2014, at the time of making that law, the Labour party supported amendments that would have placed significant barriers on engagement and required thousands of businesses, charities, non-governmental organisations and trade bodies to pay a registration fee of £1,000 a year to write or speak to Ministers. This could have been detrimental to the public interest during the covid pandemic, when groups across civil society rightly wanted to put their case to Government.
However, I agree with the hon. Lady that transparency and probity are fundamental. I would like to cover one more area on business appointment rules. As I have mentioned, the Cabinet Office is working with Lord Pickles, who is the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—ACOBA—to improve and extend the business appointment regime. That applies lobbying bans on former Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers. The business appointment rules seek to protect the integrity of the Government while allowing for people to move on to roles outside government. Although affording ACOBA statutory powers to enforce these rules would be out of line with the general principle of UK law that Ministers and officials are subject to the same legal system and statutory framework as everybody else, ACOBA is able to enforce a range of sanctions for non-compliance. That is very important. The Government support changes being introduced by ACOBA to improve the business appointment process. A framework with a risk-based consideration of cases aims to bring greater transparency and improve the reporting of any breach of the rules, increasing the moral and reputational pressure on those leaving public office. In addition, the Cabinet Office is leading work to improve the scope, clarity and enforcement of the rules, and how consistently and proportionately they are implemented across government. In short, we are taking action on a range of fronts to ensure that we maintain the highest standards in our politics and public life.
We should all condemn the kind of lobbying that gives politics and politicians a bad name in all parts of the House, but this motion does not achieve that. Instead, it sidetracks, proliferates and duplicates. I invite Labour to settle its own view, find its own position, and agree with us that transparency and probity are vitally important. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to join us in this work to continue to scrutinise these critically important matters through the work of existing Select Committees, through the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and through the inquiry that we have now set up—among other ongoing, unstinting efforts that are of course accountable to this House—and to vote against this unnecessary and unconstructive motion that achieves so little extra. It is incumbent on all politicians to act with integrity as elected Members, as Ministers when we hold such positions, and in accordance with the principles of public life. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure that important issues are carefully and effectively scrutinised. I have explained today how the Government are playing their part in this, and I urge all hon. Members to vote against the motion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
The Office for National Statistics has assessed the census operation and made adjustments in the light of the pandemic to ensure the safety of the public and census staff. Following census day—which was, of course, Sunday—the ONS remains on target to deliver a high-quality census, and I would reassure and encourage Members that there is still time for those who have not completed the census to do so.
Steve McCabe [V]
With research suggesting that 40% of those aged 75-plus are digitally excluded, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the now largely digital census does not result in a grossly skewed picture affecting long-term service provision for elderly people?
Chloe Smith
Considerable steps have been taken to ensure that that scenario does not come about. While I welcome the ONS’s intention for this to be principally a digital census, because that is generally in line with the times, the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point about our needing to work together to ensure that nobody is left out from that method. The ONS has taken extensive measures to ensure that that is the case, starting, for example, with the ability to use the telephone call centre to request a paper form and then going on to there being many types of support available for completing the form. Indeed, that happens in other communities where extra support may be required. I would be very happy to write to him with fuller details from the ONS, but I stress that that is already available on the ONS census website. Again, I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to familiarise themselves with that so that we can all best encourage our constituents to fill in the form in the way that suits them best. That will help us all to have a successful census, with the data that will help us to deliver public services.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
On 5 February this year, the Government published a delivery plan outlining how the polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. That is backed by a £32 million funding uplift for returning officers and local authorities to address costs related to covid and by changes to the law made by Parliament to help voters and candidates participate safely in elections.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly important that democracy is allowed to flourish and that electors get the chance to vote for their local representatives. Could she provide an update on what actions she is taking to ensure that the count is secure and that postal votes are treated appropriately, particularly during the pandemic?
Chloe Smith
I can, and indeed, an update will be provided to the House today by written ministerial statement, which will give Members full details. The Electoral Commission has produced guidance for the count, and we have worked with it to ensure that that is properly up to date and assists in understanding some of the tensions in the arrangements that will be needed by returning officers to run successful counts. Of course, the need for free and fair elections often comes to the fore of people’s minds at the count, where scrutiny is just as essential as public safety in this case.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to put out guidance on other elements of the overall election process, including postal votes. I take this opportunity to emphasise that postal votes and other items of paperwork do not need to be quarantined, contrary to some recent media reporting. That has also been made clear by the Electoral Commission and others.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The trouble is that our democracy is not open to everyone. Millions of voters are still missing from the electoral register, but instead of prioritising that, the Government have chosen to prioritise their discriminatory policy requiring voters to show photo ID—plans that will cost millions of pounds and put up barriers making it more difficult to participate in democracy, and all that while curbing free expression and the right to protest. I should not be surprised at the Minister’s half-hearted approach to being innovative in making this May’s elections accessible. What would she say to a vulnerable person who has voted in person for their entire life but now feels it is unsafe to do so due to this Government’s lack of action?
Chloe Smith
I would encourage any such person to apply for a postal vote, which I will be using at this local election. Many people will prefer to do it that way, and that is absolutely fine, as it has always been. May I call out the hon. Lady for her needless posturing? I would like to say that I am surprised by it, but it is not even new—she does it every single time—and in this case, she has not taken the opportunity to explain to the House why the Labour party does not even practise what it preaches. It still asks for voter ID at its own meetings, and that is because it is a reasonable and sensible policy.
Local Government Elections and Referendums: Covid-19 Indemnity
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
On 5 February, the Government confirmed that the council, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections scheduled for 6 May 2021 will be going ahead as planned, and published a delivery plan outlining how these polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. Since then, the Government have put in place a number of measures to support statutorily independent returning officers to deliver these elections successfully and with the right precautions in place. I have also today updated Parliament separately on the wider progress being made to support delivery of the local polls on 6 May 2021.
The Government have already, in line with usual practice, provided an indemnity in relation to police and crime commissioner elections. The delivery plan also included a commitment to provide a further indemnity for local elections and referendums1, in respect of covid-19 risks, in order to address any gaps in coverage of existing local authority insurance.
It is necessary to indemnify returning officers and counting officers in England against uninsured claims in this way because, for the purposes of local elections and referendums, returning officers and counting officers are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As such, they are personally liable for the conduct of the local elections and referendums. Existing insurance that covers returning officers and counting officers in discharging their statutory duties at local elections will not, in most cases, cover them against claims in relation to covid-19.
In light of this, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to indemnify returning officers and counting officers on this very limited basis at local elections and referendums in England taking place between 6 May 2021 and 4 May 2022 inclusively. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
The purpose of the indemnity is to ensure that returning officers are financially supported if any covid-19 related claims are brought against them in relation to the local polls. Whilst the indemnity provides for reimbursement of costs incurred once a claim has been concluded, we want to support returning officers wherever possible to deal effectively with claims brought against them. We will look at any such claims on their merits and seek to provide returning officers with any relevant support we are able to give them to effectively and robustly defend such claims. It is right that returning officers can be held to account for the conduct of the polls but it is also right that we support these individuals financially in that process.
The indemnity covers (but is not limited to) a returning officer’s or counting officer’s liabilities to the public, as an employer, or otherwise incurred in his or her professional capacity:
in relation to any claim for personal injury or death where the cause of action relates to the contracting of covid-19 due to participation in the election or referendum process in the context of the returning officer’s or counting officer’s exercise of their functions, or
as a result of a challenge to the conduct of the election or referendum by an election or referendum petition arising from alleged poll irregularities caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
The indemnity only covers losses, liability, damages, costs, claims, proceedings or expenses incurred in relation to the conduct of the local government election or referendum arising from covid-19 related issues. There is no limit on the number of claims which a returning officer may make under this indemnity.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
1 This refers to council tax referendums, neighbourhood planning referendums and governance referendums held in England under the relevant legislation.
[HCWS899]
Local Elections: May 2021
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am updating Parliament today on the progress being made to support delivery of the local polls on 6 May 2021 and to outline our expectations for the respective verification and count process. I have also today separately laid before Parliament the indemnity the Government are providing to returning officers and counting officers, in relation to covid-19, for the local elections and referendums in England taking place between 6 May 2021 and 4 May 2022 inclusively.
Safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. On 5 February, the Government published a delivery plan outlining how these polls will be delivered in a covid-secure way. The Government have been working closely with Public Health England, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), political parties and independents to support the delivery of these polls.
On 26 February, the Government published guidance on covid-secure campaigning for the May polls, supporting a level playing field for candidates and ensuring that voters can make a well-informed choice while continuing to protect the NHS and save lives.
Parliament has made changes to the nomination process to reduce the amount of movement and person-to-person contact that might otherwise be necessary, but ensuring there remains a democratic check and balance for candidates.
Legislation has also been made to change the rules for proxy voting, enabling those who need to self-isolate close to polling day to request an emergency proxy vote at very short notice, right up to 5pm on polling day itself.
Building on these changes to legislation and guidance, the Government are also continuing to provide practical support to returning officers where appropriate, including the sourcing of over 2,000 additional volunteer staff for the polls to date.
This work supports the significant preparations already being undertaken by local authorities and is backed up by Government funding. The Government are directly providing around £95 million for the running of the polls, which includes an additional allocation of around £32 million to specifically cover additional covid-19 related costs.
As outlined in my written statement of 9 March 2021, the Government are also committed to tackling intimidation in public life. Further to this, we are today publishing security guidance for returning officers and candidates to support the May 2021 polls.
Of course, polling day is not the end of the electoral process and I am aware that many returning officers are considering carefully how they can conduct the verification and count, which are often large and complex events, in a covid-secure way. It is vital for free and fair elections that polls are transparent and effectively scrutinised. However, minimising the transmission of covid-19 and protecting public health is a priority during these elections. A strong set of measures will therefore be in place to ensure every aspect of the polls are covid-secure for voters, staff and observers.
It is the responsibility of returning officers to manage the conduct of the count and to ensure that appropriate reasonable measures are taken to comply with covid-19 regulations and to allow fair scrutiny of the count. Returning officers will want to put in place arrangements to allow the effective scrutiny of their counts while ensuring the count is covid-secure for everyone present. To support returning officers with this, the Government have been working with the Electoral Commission to update their guidance on the verification and count process in the context of the pandemic, in line with prevailing covid-19 restrictions. I have also written today to election administrators to provide guidance on there being no public health need to quarantine ballot papers or postal votes.
The announcement of results will, as usual, be made as soon as is practicable after the close of the polls. However, it is important to be clear that counts, like other aspects of these polls, may look and feel different to previous occasions. Due to covid-secure measures, each stage of the count may take longer than in previous years. It is essential that all involved recognise the need to work together to support them taking place effectively and safely.
Democracy should not be cancelled because of covid-19, and the Government have every confidence in the ability of the returning officers and their teams to run these polls in a way that meets the highest standards of both public safety and democratic integrity. The Government are committed to supporting the sector to achieve this. I would like once again to express gratitude for the tireless efforts and exceptional dedication of all those involved.
The associated documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS900]
European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks Report
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2020 to 25 December 2020”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the 10th three-month reporting period, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 September 2020 to 25 December 2020” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
[HCWS857]
Tackling Intimidation in Public Life
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I wish to update hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to tackle intimidation in public life.
In July 2017, the then Prime Minister commissioned the Committee on Standards in Public Life to undertake a review into abuse and intimidation in elections. This followed concerning evidence from many parliamentary candidates across the political spectrum on their experiences during the 2017 general election. The Government’s response to that report in March 2018 outlined the Government’s planned programme of work in the area, and the Committee has published its own follow-up to its report in December 2020.
Tackling intimidation in public life also forms an important part of the defending democracy programme, a cross-Government initiative led by the Cabinet Office.
Protecting free speech within the law
It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on the one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional.
Free speech within the law can sometimes involve the expression of political views that some may find offensive: a point that the Government have recognised in the Department for Education’s policy paper, “Higher education: free speech and academic freedom”, published last month. But a line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, which refuses to tolerate other opinions and seeks to deprive others from exercising their free speech and freedom of association.
Tackling threats to MPs
The Home Office is responding today, on behalf of Government, to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”.
This outlines how the Government are addressing the concerns raised in the report on:
The need for collaboration to tackle the issue of threats to MPs;
The national approach to prosecuting offences against MPs;
The online abuse and harassment faced by MPs; and
Policing around Parliament and beyond.
Ensuring safety of journalists
Also today, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is publishing the first National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists.
The Government’s aim is to ensure that journalists operating in the UK are as safe as possible; reduce the number of attacks on and threats issued to journalists; and ensure those that are responsible for such are brought to justice. In order to support this goal, it outlines how the Government are taking steps to:
Increase our understanding of the problem;
Enhance the criminal justice system response in tackling crimes against journalists;
Support journalists and their employers to build the resources they need to protect personal safety;
Help online platforms to tackle the wider issue of abuse online; and
Improve public recognition of the value of journalists.
Preventing intimidation in elections
In due course, the Government will legislate to introduce a new electoral sanction of intimidation against those who participate in elections and contribute to the political debate, including candidates and campaigners. This new sanction complements the existing offence of undue influence against electors.
Under this new electoral sanction, someone convicted of intimidating a candidate, future candidate, campaigner or elected representative will face a ban on standing for and holding elective office for five years. This five-year disqualification is in addition to the substantive punishment for the underlying existing criminal offences of an intimidatory nature. It is simply not right that those who seek to damage free, fair and vibrant political participation should then be allowed to participate in the very same process they sought to undermine.
We have already updated electoral law to ensure local candidates can choose for their home address to not be made public; the local authority area in which they live can appear on the ballot paper instead.
The Government will also be legislating to require imprints on digital campaigning material. While this will increase transparency in modern campaigning, it will also ensure greater scrutiny and accountability of those who promote material, including third party campaigners. The Cabinet Office has undertaken two separate consultations on this area, as it is complex. We need to be mindful not to impose excessive regulation of free speech by individuals, nor force campaigners to publish their home addresses as part of the imprint requirement.
The Government will also legislate to clarify and improve the offence of undue influence of a voter. We want to ensure that the offence offers adequate protection for electors to be free from undue influence and that the offence is effective for enforcement agencies. This reflects recommendations made by the Pickles review into electoral fraud, following the 2015 election court relating to elections in Tower Hamlets.
Parties leading on codes of conduct and support
The Government response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report asserted that all political parties should put in place their own individual, tailored, code of conduct which sets out the standards of behaviour expected of their party members and representatives. All of the political parties represented in the House of Commons now have in place their own code of conduct.
The Government did not, and does not, support a joint code. This is impractical given there are over 300 registered political parties, and since joint codes may fuel and encourage the issuing of politically vexatious and unfounded complaints.
Many parties have significantly increased their support for elected representatives who face abuse.
Providing guidance for MPs
The Government have worked with the Law Officers to publish new guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the laws on intimidation, and the wide range of areas in which intimidation can be prosecuted under existing laws. This has been complemented by police guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
For hon. Members who have not previously read the CPS guidance, it can be found at:
Responding to intimidating behaviour: Information for Parliamentarians:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/responding-to-intimidating-behaviour-04-2019.
The NPCC, CPS, College of Policing and Electoral Commission have also issued Joint Guidance for Candidates in Elections, which is distributed by the Electoral Commission:
https://www.electoraslcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Joint-Guidance-for-Candidates-in-Elections.
Action on online communications
The Government have published their full response to the Online Harms White Paper consultation. The response confirms that Ofcom will be named as the independent regulator, who will oversee the regulatory framework, setting clear safety standards, backed up by mandatory reporting requirements and strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. Legislation will follow in due course.
We expect companies to take action now, ahead of the regulatory framework coming into force. We have set out steps that we expect companies to take across a range of harms on a voluntary basis ahead of legislation being finalised. These include ensuring products and services are safe by design and that users who have experienced harm are directed to, and are able to receive, adequate support. While it is not for the Government to dictate how companies allocate resources internally, we have been clear that platforms need to do significantly more to address online abuse.
We are also ensuring that the criminal law is fit for purpose to deal with online abuse. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice engaged the Law Commission on a second phase of its review of abusive and offensive online communications. This included considering whether co-ordinated harassment by groups of people online could be more effectively dealt with by the criminal law. The Law Commission has now consulted on proposed recommendations for reform. It will provide final recommendations in 2021, which we will carefully consider.
The Government are engaging with international partners to promote international consensus on what constitutes hate crime and intimidation online. The Government are currently working with international partners on this issue in the Council of Europe.
I hope this outlines how the Government are continuing to work to deliver their commitments to tackle intimidation in public life. The Government are open and receptive to ideas from hon. Members and other elected representatives on what further steps can be taken to protect the exercise of free speech and democratic representation across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS833]
Local Elections
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am updating Parliament on the Government’s plans to proceed with the local elections on 6 May 2021 and the statutory instruments I am laying today on nominations.
Safe and secure elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. The Government have long been clear that there should be a very high bar for delay, but they were responsible to keep the situation under review in order to take into account the views of the electoral community and of public health experts. Having considered these views, the Government confirmed on Friday 5 February 2021 that the range of polls scheduled for 6 May 2021, including council and mayoral elections in England, and the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, will go ahead as planned. It is important that we give this certainty to the electoral sector and political parties.
The Government haves also published a delivery plan setting out how the polls will be delivered in a covid-19 secure and effective way. It sets out how these polls will proceed, from announcement to results, and then covers the four major areas that we are addressing: public health and social distancing; nominations and campaigning; voting; and the delivery of elections. The Government are providing a package of measures to support statutorily independent returning officers to deliver these elections successfully and with the right precautions in place. Those measures include changes to proxy voting rules so that those affected by covid-19 can still vote; and the provision of indemnity to returning officers for covid-19 risks in respect of these elections.
There will be an estimated £92 million of Government grant funding that will be provided to local authorities for the elections; of this, £31 million is an uplift to directly address costs associated with making the elections covid-19 secure.
I am today providing further detail of the measures the Government intend to take to change temporarily the nominations process, in light of the exceptional circumstances. For potential candidates standing for elected office in the council, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, we are introducing measures to reduce the travel and contact involved in completing their nomination form.
The Government have listened to the views of the electoral sector, candidates and political parties that the need to collect a high number of signatures for nomination as a candidate in some types of poll was encouraging an unhelpful and unnecessary amount of interaction, as well as complexity for candidates. While it is essential that candidates in a poll can demonstrate a clear amount of local support, we must balance the importance of democracy with the need to protect people in these unique circumstances. In reaching a decision about the approach to nominations we have consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel and considered other cross-party representations.
These statutory instruments, one affirmative and one negative, will therefore make changes to the nomination process to reduce the number of signatures that candidates are required to collect for almost all types of poll due to be held on 6 May, including council elections, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. These provisions are time-limited; the elections next May (2022) will automatically revert to the standard rules.
I intend to publish further guidance for candidates, their agents and political parties later this month. The Government will be engaging with the Parliamentary Parties Panel on the new guidance and on campaigning provisions, to ensure the views of political parties are taken into account.
The associated documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS773]
Census 2021: England and Wales
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
The census for England and Wales is scheduled to take place on 21 March 2021. The census is delivered for the UK Government and the Welsh Government by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), based on its recommendations published in the December 2018 White Paper “Help Shape Our Future”[CM 9745].
The information the census provides on the population and their characteristics, education, religion, ethnicity, working life and health ensures that decisions made by national and local government, community groups, charities and business are based on the best information possible. This enables a wide range of services and future planning to better serve communities and individuals across England and Wales.
This will be a digital-first census answered primarily online. The ONS has a target for online completion of 75%. People will be encouraged to respond online if they can on their mobile phones, laptops, PCs or tablets. Help will be available for those who need assistance, and members of the public who prefer to complete a paper form will be able to do so.
In the context of the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic, the safety of the public and the census field force is of the utmost importance to the Government and the ONS. The ONS has designed Census 2021 to be simple, straightforward and safe to complete, to ensure that everyone can be safely counted. Its assessment is that Census 2021 can be carried out safely and securely with the flexibility built into its operation to respond to any changes in risk levels or guidance. The main census field operation will begin only after census day. Field staff will never enter people’s houses; they will be supplied with PPE, will always be socially distanced and will work in line with all Government guidance.
The ONS has already launched its schools campaign; its national media campaign will be launched in the coming weeks telling people that Census 2021 is coming and the benefits of the census. On 22 January, the ONS published a statement on the importance of going ahead with the census in March 2021 and how they plan to do this safely for the public and census staff.
This statement is available on the ONS website: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/census2021andcoronavirus
Census plans have often had to anticipate and respond to events; for example, 20 years ago the census was delivered effectively during the foot and mouth crisis.
Other countries have been able to carry out their census activities during the pandemic—for example, the USA. The ONS has learnt valuable lessons from these experiences.
Following the ONS’s advice, the Government are confident that Census 2021 will be successful and provide a wealth of data reflecting the society we live in today, enabling national and local government, community groups, charities and businesses to better serve communities and individuals across England and Wales.
The census in Northern Ireland will take place at the same time as England and Wales; the census in Scotland will take place in March 2022 following the decision taken by the Scottish Government last year.
[HCWS755]
Indemnity for Police Area Returning Officers and Local Returning Officers: 2021 Police and Crime
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
It is necessary for the Cabinet Office to indemnify police area returning officers (PAROs) and local returning officers (LROs) in England and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in police and crime commissioner (PCC) elections. This is because for the purposes of PCC elections, PAROs and LROs are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As such, they are personally liable for the conduct of the PCC elections. They are therefore potentially exposed to a variety of legal risks and challenges. Existing insurance that covers PAROs and LROs in discharging their statutory duties as returning officers at local elections will not, in most cases, cover them at the PCC election.
In the light of this, the Cabinet Office proposes to continue to indemnify PAROs and LROs at the forthcoming PCC elections on 6 May 2021, and any subsequent by-elections taking place before the next scheduled elections on 1 May 2024, against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties where existing insurance cover does not apply. Where a PARO or LRO already holds insurance which covers liabilities incurred at the PCC election, they will be required to claim under that insurance (or to seek to claim under it) before making a claim against this indemnity. Insurance for specific elections has historically provided extremely poor value for money, with claims made under such cover being smaller than the cost of the insurance premium. An indemnity therefore provides better value for money and this approach has been taken for elections since 2009.
On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify PAROs and LROs against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to the PCC elections.
In Wales, PAROs and LROs will be conducting Welsh parliamentary elections in combination with PCC elections on 6 May 2021. The Welsh Government will provide their own indemnity to returning officers working on the Welsh parliamentary polls. Where a claim is made against the actions or conduct of a returning officer in relation to both Welsh parliamentary and PCC elections, any losses, liability, damages, costs, claims, proceedings or expenses incurred in relation to the combined polls will be apportioned equally, so far as that is reasonable.
The indemnity will provide PAROs and LROs with cover for:
Amounts that exceed the upper limits on any existing insurance policies held by them, or local authorities on their behalf, that will provide coverage;
Any reasonable costs resulting from their liabilities to the public, as an employer or in their professional role.
The indemnity will only apply so far as any charges are not otherwise recoverable under the charges provisions contained in section 55 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and is subject to exclusions set out in the departmental minute. The indemnity is otherwise unlimited in terms of the maximum amount covered per claim.
We will also provide a certificate confirming that we will bear any employee liabilities of the PARO or LRO which would otherwise be covered by insurance procured under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
[HCWS706]
Indemnity for Returning Officers and Acting Returning Officers: UK Parliamentary Elections
Chloe Smith Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
It is necessary for the Cabinet Office to indemnify returning officers in England, Scotland and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in the course of a UK parliamentary election or by-election. This is because for purposes of UK parliamentary elections, returning officers and acting returning officers throughout Great Britain (referred to below as “ROs” and “AROs”) are statutorily independent officers. They are separate from both central and local government. As a result, they are exposed to a variety of legal risks varying from minor claims for injury, to significant election petitions and associated legal costs.
ROs and AROs make their own arrangements to insure themselves against any risks they face in taking forward their statutory duties at local and UK parliamentary elections. The cover obtained usually forms part of the local authority’s own insurance arrangements. While this insurance will cover certain risks to which ROs and AROs may be exposed at UK parliamentary elections, they could ultimately be liable for claims of a type not covered by insurance policies. They could also be liable for claims that exceed the insurance limits in existing cover.
In the light of this, the Cabinet Office proposes to continue to provide ROs and AROs with a specific indemnity for UK parliamentary elections to supplement the insurance policies that have been arranged locally. On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify ROs and AROs against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to UK parliamentary elections.
The indemnity will cover ROs’ and AROs’ costs (including reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses) incurred in connection with a UK parliamentary election, which arise in relation to their discharge of responsibilities as RO or ARO but fall outside of the scope of the insurance cover which they have arranged locally, and where all other forms of recourse have been exhausted. The indemnity will be limited to the extent set out in the departmental minute.
The indemnity will cover costs arising in relation to UK parliamentary elections, including byelections, where the date of the poll is on or before 1 May 2024. The indemnity is subject to exceptions identified in the minute, but is unlimited in terms of the maximum amount it covers per claim. If the liability is called, provision for any payment is to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
[HCWS707]