Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I remind Members that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

First, I want to be very clear that the Liberal Democrats condemn antisemitism. Anti-Jewish hatred has absolutely no place in our society, and we must all do more—as individuals, as political parties and as a Parliament—to tackle antisemitism in all its forms. Nor do we support the BDS movement or any other singling out of Israel driven by anti-Jewish hatred. However, we do not believe that this piece of legislation is going to help to tackle antisemitism. In fact, as many Members throughout the House, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), have already set out, the measures in the Bill could even be counterproductive, which is frankly the last thing we want.

Liberal Democrats are also deeply concerned by a series of the provisions in the Bill. First, it will greatly restrict the ability of public bodies to take action against human rights abuses. Many public bodies as well as civil society organisations are alarmed by the persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, which has led to the detention of more than a million people by the Chinese state. Regrettably, the Government have failed to recognise the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang, even though Parliament has called on them to do so. It is appalling that a local council will be prevented from calling what is taking place in Xinjiang what it is—a genocide—simply because the Government continue to take a cowardly approach. It seems extraordinary that a local council or museum would risk a significant fine by deciding that they did not want to buy products coming from Xinjiang.

Many of us in this place will remember the popular boycotts of South African goods in the 1980s, which were an effective way of demonstrating opposition to apartheid and which added to the international political pressure to end the regime. In this country, it was local councils that led the way then—and thank goodness they did—but under these new provisions, such action would be illegal.

Secondly, this piece of legislation represents an unjustified restriction on the power of local communities to take decisions for themselves. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe in liberalism, federalism and localism. We believe that it is up to local authorities and public bodies to be able to decide for themselves what they do. If local councillors are elected on a manifesto that includes a commitment to a boycott on ethical or environmental grounds, we believe that those councillors should be held to account by their local electorate, not banned by a distant central Government.

Thirdly, we are hugely concerned by the restriction on the freedom of speech on public bodies and elected representatives in clause 4—the gagging clause. The Bill does not just restrict a public body from engaging in boycott and divestment; it restricts it from saying that it would support such a boycott if it were legal. That represents a significant overreach, which will erode a fundamental democratic right—that of free speech.

Fourthly, I echo the concerns raised by other Members that the provisions in clause 3 represent an attempt by the Government to change their position on the status of the occupied territories. The UK Government have always made a distinction between the occupied territories and Israel, in line with international law. That is clear in everything from our trading arrangements to the advice given to businesses looking to operate in the occupied territories. However, the Bill conflates the two by listing the occupied territories as exempt from the Bill alongside Israel. The Bill goes against not just the widespread consensus held on both sides of the House and by our allies, but international law. What an irony it is that, at the heart of a Bill designed to restrict local councils from speaking out about international issues, we find the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities trying to conduct his own foreign policy. It is almost as if he has forgotten the purported purpose of his own legislation.

On today of all days, when we have awoken yet again to more violence in the region, it is incredibly depressing that the Government are choosing not to stand up for international law, at a time when there is such hopelessness around the conflict.

In conclusion, I firmly agree that we need to do more on the pressing need to tackle antisemitism. I agree that the BDS movement targeting Israel will not help to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. If there is a need to beef-up legislation on hate crime or prejudice against protected characteristics, such as race and religion, Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly support such a move. Local councils should not be singling out one country and holding it to a higher standard than others because of their own prejudice, but closing down debate on international human rights issues will not achieve the stated aim of stamping out antisemitism. The resolution to the problem is not to clamp down on debate on international human rights issues. The Liberal Democrats will oppose the Bill for that reason, and will be voting in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

I urge the Secretary of State to rethink this legislation and work across party lines to resolve issues of prejudice and discrimination by more practical and fair means.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I will take absolutely no lessons from a representative of a political party that stood aside and watched as the Tees works collapsed in 2015.

Labour is therefore asking the Government to provide all papers, advice and correspondence, including Ministers, senior officials and special advisers, relating to the decision by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to commission a review into the Tees Valley Combined Authority’s oversight of the South Tees Development Corporation and the Teesworks joint venture, including papers relating to the decision that the review should not be led by the National Audit Office.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The hon. Member is probably aware that, in addition to the scandal that she is outlining in her excellent speech, Woking Council has today issued a section 114 notice, following its having run up £1.9 billion of debts under a Conservative-led administration, when it has core spending power of just £14 million. Does she agree that a National Audit Office investigation is important for the people of Woking as well, because there is clearly inadequate scrutiny of decision making on public money?

[Lisa Nandy]

There is a wider point here, which is that devolution matters but it matters for a reason. It matters because decisions taken closer to people, driven by the people of the place they call home and for the benefit of those people, have the ability to transform lives. We need and deserve proper robust scrutiny arrangements and accountability in every part of the country, not just some, in order to ensure that.

I am sick and tired of hearing Conservative Members making accusations at our doorstep about unfounded allegations and naysaying about regeneration in the north-east. They are wrong and I suspect that they know it. The Labour Front-Bench team has not made allegations against Teesworks and the development corporation, and we will not do so before any investigation reports back. What we have asked for is honesty, transparency and clarity about what appears on the face of it to be an incredibly murky situation. It is the clear breakdown of local accountability that is sufficiently alarming that an investigation by the National Audit Office is required. We want to see this resolved. Conservative Members should want to see this resolved for the benefit of people on Teesside. The South Tees Mayor believes that is the case, as do three Select Committee Chairs, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—if he did not, no investigation at all would be forthcoming. Let me be clear that the Humble Address today is about ensuring that a proper, full and independent investigation can take place in terms sufficient to provide the public with confidence in the process and the outcome of the investigation. In hand picking a panel and terms of reference, the Secretary of State has done a disservice to the principle of independent scrutiny and to his commitment to devolution, which until today I believed to be sincere. He has made it harder for confidence and transparency to return.

New Housing Supply

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing it.

I think that we are all in agreement that we have a housing crisis, and that young people in particular deserve an opportunity to buy a decent home for themselves, or at least to rent one at an affordable price and of a decent habitable standard. The proportion of people renting in the UK has grown substantially since the mid-1990s, from 29% to 35%, and, in tandem, more people are paying a higher portion of their salary to rent their homes. Shelter UK estimates that private renters are spending more than 30% of their income on rent.

Finding a good-quality home at a fair price has become a never-ending task for some people. There is a general consensus that we need to deliver around 300,000 new homes every year if we are to overcome the crisis. However, despite the efforts of successive Governments, this has not been achieved since the 1950s, and we should ask ourselves why that is.

It seems like an obvious question, but much of the debate focuses on planning, and indeed on blaming the nimby. But if we look at the numbers, we can see that building, not planning, is the key driver behind this shortfall. In the past six years, we have granted planning permission for an average of just over 300,000 homes per year. Some 80%, or possibly more, of planning applications were granted last year. Although I agree that the process needs to be streamlined, that is not the reason why the homes are not being built.

So what is the reason? The first is to do with profitability. Developers build at a rate that the local market can absorb without depressing prices, because, obviously, they need to make a profit on their activities, which is quite reasonable. Another reason is capacity in the industry. We do not suffer high rates of unemployment in the construction industry—quite the opposite, in fact. In the absence of thousands of construction workers sitting about with nothing to do, the simple reality is that it is not possible for us to build 300,000 houses a year without an informed strategy to train and retain the workers required to deliver them.

It is also important to consider the types of housing that we want to see built. We urgently need affordable housing, but developers make most of their money from larger, more expensive homes, and that worsens the shortage of affordable housing. I am sure that we all have examples in our constituencies of local developments with affordable housing quotas being specified as conditions of planning permission, only for those quotas to be significantly watered down on the basis of commercial viability as that development progresses. The result is that the least well-off in society are bearing the brunt of the housing crisis, because it is at its most acute in the affordable and social rented sectors. Here again, demand is outstripping supply, often forcing people to live in cramped and unsuitable temporary accommodation while they await their chance to be allocated a property from the housing register.

Overall, the National Housing Federation has estimated that there are currently 8.5 million people in England with some form of unmet housing need. That is putting huge pressure on the private rental market, keeping rents unaffordably high and preventing many young people from saving for a deposit with which to buy their first home.

I wish to focus my attention specifically on the provision of social housing, especially in rural areas. I also broadly agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on social housing. The NHF estimates that 4.2 million people would benefit from a social housing solution, and that 145,000 additional affordable homes need to be built each year, including 90,000 for social rent, and that is just to meet the current need for social housing in England. Despite that, last year just 60,000 new affordable homes were built, and a mere 7,500 homes were built or acquired for social rent.

Put simply, those are astonishing statistics. However, based on my constituents’ experiences, they are not surprising. A lack of affordable and social housing is a particular issue for rural constituencies such as mine in North Shropshire. The all-party parliamentary group for rural business, of which I am a member, has estimated that 175,000 people are on rural housing lists at present, with homelessness increasing, especially among young people.

Rural homelessness may be invisible, but it is estimated to have increased by 24% in the past year, according to a study commissioned by English Rural. With average house prices 8.6 times higher in rural areas than in urban areas, this is hardly surprising. Only 11% of annual affordable housing delivery is built in rural areas, and that figure is falling. For every eight homes sold through the right-to-buy policy in a rural area, only one has been replaced. Overall, only 8% of rural housing stock is affordable compared with 19% in urban areas. This not only deprives people of the basic need of a home, but creates a barrier to the rural economy, causing businesses to struggle to recruit the quality of workforce they need to survive. In short, we need more affordable and socially rentable homes, and we especially need them in rural areas.

The impacts of this deficit of social housing are depressing. Many people waiting for social housing are forced into the private rented sector, where homes are often inappropriate, insecure and really expensive. They are also pushing up demand and average rents, working to inflate the demand for housing benefits. Alternatively, those waiting on the housing register are often housed in so-called temporary accommodation—often rooms in bed and breakfasts, hotels or shared houses. Even in my constituency, I have found that they can be unsuitable and even hazardous solutions to the lack of available social housing, and that housing register applicants live in them for far longer than a period that could be considered temporary.

Of course, that lack of housing comes at a substantial social cost. Shelter has suggested that, of the nearly 100,000 households living in temporary accommodation, more than 25% live outside the local authority area they previously lived in. Not only do those people suffer the threat of homelessness, but their only chance of being offered a roof over their head involves moving away from their places of work, critically their support networks, often including childcare, and their children’s schools. For a family already suffering the threat of homelessness, that intensifies an already incredibly tough situation.

In my constituency, I have families facing lengthy waits to be provided with a house, and a lot of my casework deals with the quality of social housing. I have a family of seven in a two-bedroom house, unable to find something more suitable despite having been given priority status. I have a woman whose mental health is at rock bottom, having been placed in a bed and breakfast for months on end, and a family with a disabled child unable to find a home with step-free access.

Like most hon. Members, I also have a constituent struggling with mould and damp in council and local authority housing, which, instead of being treated, has just been given a new extractor fan. One constituent has a disabled child and another suffers from asthma. We all agree that that property is not adequate to meet their needs, and those are just a few examples I have picked out from my casework. We must go further and build at least 150,000 new homes for social rent per year, delivered by empowering local authorities to commission the housing that they need, with an independent inspectorate to evaluate their assessment of that need.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech, none of that can be delivered without training the workforce to deliver it. I think we agree on the need to increase the housing supply, with the right homes in the right places, but social housing must be a key element of delivering that. We need to empower local authorities to put those homes where they are needed and we need a coherent workforce strategy to be able to build them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

It has been a genuine pleasure to be part of this evening’s debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in his absence on securing it. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) for what I thought was an exemplary speech, in which I really could not find anything to disagree with. I say that with deep admiration.

We must confront the stark reality that we are facing a severe shortfall in housing because of the policy choices of successive Governments, a dearth of political leadership at both local and national level, and a lack of honesty with the public about the consequences every time a Member of this House, a local councillor or a local campaign group celebrates blocking new homes. The Centre for Cities estimates that our shortfall is as great as 4.3 million homes. That crisis is stunting our economic growth, leaving young people without the space to start a family, and trapping renters in unsafe accommodation. At our aimed-for build rate of 300,000 homes a year, it would take us some 50 years to put that right, and we are not getting anywhere near that build rate.

Of course, historically we did much better. Home ownership was a moral mission for the Macmillan Government, and it may not have escaped the attention of Conservative Members that his achievements underpinned his huge election victory in 1959, in the way that Mrs Thatcher won huge support through her right-to-buy policy. The contrast with the 1960s could hardly be more stark: in that decade, we built 3.6 million homes, more than we have built in total since the turn of the century. We have created a supply and demand feedback loop of the worst possible kind.

I am afraid that I must take issue with the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) when she says that the planning system is not the problem. I am afraid that it is: that system is fundamentally broken. It is what is driving the fact that someone buying their first home now faces paying nine times their income for it. In the 1980s, the figure was just three times the average salary.

[Helen Morgan]

I would just like to clarify: it is not the only problem. We give planning permission for all these houses, but we do not build them. We need to address the build-out problem as well as the planning issue.

Leasehold Reform

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

The last Liberal Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, launched a campaign against leasehold in 1909, describing the leasehold system as blackmail, not business. In 2023, it is unacceptable that, despite campaigning by the Liberal Democrats and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—and some truly excellent speeches today—we are in the same position.

The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 was a necessary small step in the right direction to protect leaseholders from exploitation, but it is extremely disappointing that the next steps of the Act have once again been delayed, despite the Secretary of State admitting that the system is feudal in nature. He is, of course, right. Being unable to control the amount of ground rent paid each year is a relic of the feudal system, and is why pretty much every other country apart from Australia has abolished it and replaced it with some form of commonhold tenure.

It is also not right that homeowners should have to pay tens of thousands of pounds to renew their lease and remain in their own home when it ends, often having seen very little—if any—of their landlord during the period of ownership. Hon. Members have already made excellent speeches about the unfairness of this outdated system. Like them, I have casework from residents frustrated by extortionate ground rents and management fees.

I would like to reflect a little more on the management fees, which are becoming a scourge not only in traditional leasehold arrangements but in many new developments, where shared management companies for the areas outside the bricks and mortar of the owner’s home are exhibiting many of the characteristics of the landlord in a leasehold arrangement. These are known colloquially as “fleecehold” arrangements, and are as much of a problem as the traditional leasehold charges that we have been discussing at length.

Across North Shropshire there are several new developments, built by both large well-known developers—Persimmon has been mentioned, which I have dealt with—and smaller rogue developments, where the council have rightly required shared space as part of the planning conditions. But the developer has made no provision for those shared areas and the roads, street lights, pavements and play facilities to be adopted by the local authority. Instead, the shared areas are maintained by a management company and all the homeowners of the new development, who are the freeholders of their own homes, must share the costs of maintenance. The commercial substance of that arrangement is a leasehold.

Homeowners have come to me, fleeced by their management company and unable to force the directors of those management companies to hold annual general meetings or provide proper accounts. They do not want me to name their developments because that will reduce their ability to sell a home that they desperately want to leave and are completely trapped in.

The companies share similar features. They are often non-profit-making, simply passing on the costs of maintenance to the owners of homes on the development. But there is a catch: they are controlled by the original developer and they outsource the maintenance work to a connected business—often run by the original developer—which charges an exorbitant fee to the maintenance company. That way, the developer can fleece the people who bought their homes in good faith, and who cannot exit the arrangement. More importantly, having just taken on a mortgage for the most important purchase of their life, they do not have the resources to take the company to court, or to force it to hold meetings or get competitive quotes for the work required.

As Members have pointed out, there is often no point turning to the conveyancing solicitor for help with faulty conveyancing, because the solicitor was recommended by the developer, which offered a discount to use them. Quite how those solicitors get around conflict of interest laws I am not sure, but the result is that the homeowner is left with nowhere to turn.

It is important to emphasise that these people do not get a reduction in their council tax, often while suffering unfinished roads, inadequate lighting and wasteland that should be some sort of park or recreation area. If the council enforces the conditions of the planning permission—to tidy up and landscape the shared areas for example—the costs are passed on to the residents, who have no choice but to pay. I have a case where a large national developer—Persimmon—requires the permission of the management company to allow someone to sell their freehold. That is leasehold in all but name, and it needs reforming along with the feudal arrangement that we all agree needs getting rid of.

There is one development that I can name because it has already been made public, and I described it in some detail in an Adjournment debate last year. The Brambles in Whitchurch was set up under one of these arrangements but, catastrophically, the developer went bust before the estate was finished. The homeowners are liable for the maintenance of the shared areas, which includes their sewerage connection. But it was not completed properly, and they have faced exorbitant costs of over £1 million between 14 homes to get their foul waste connected to the mains sewers and their roads surfaced. That is very similar to the situation in which some leaseholders found themselves after the disastrous Grenfell fire, when they discovered they were living in buildings covered with dangerous cladding, but there is no equivalent of the Building Safety Act 2022 to protect the homeowners in my constituency who have no sewerage connection.

In a second case, a developer charges astronomical fees for the maintenance of a shared ground source heat pump, but keeps the renewable heat incentive payment, paid by the Government, to himself, in his own, separate company.

In a third case, the management company is connected to the maintenance outsource provider and passes on astronomical costs to the residents. There is no mechanism to help these people; indeed, the practice is becoming the norm. Local authorities are not incentivised to adopt shared areas when they can charge full council tax and effectively dodge the maintenance costs that come with the new dwellings.

When the legislation to deal with our outdated leasehold system is finally brought before the House, I urge the Minister to consider measures to deal with the outrageous practice of fleeceholds, which is being exploited by sharp practice at best and possible criminality at worst, and to ensure that people who have already been subjected to those arrangements can take more control of their situation.

Many people have already entered into fleecehold or leasehold arrangements, before any legislation to protect them has been implemented. For example, nobody should feel pressured to renew their lease before the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 is implemented. To this end, I am happy that Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Stunell, introduced amendment 9 to that Act in the other place, to protect people who need to renew their leases by creating a duty to inform leaseholders of the contents of the Act before negotiating or renegotiating a lease extension. Unfortunately, the Government removed the amendment when the Bill returned to this place.

When people buy a home, it is often the biggest and most important purchase of their lives—it is a dream realised. They are often promised reasonable-sounding ground rents and maintenance fees, but when they find themselves tied into a cycle of rapidly increasing costs, beyond their control, that dream turns into a nightmare.

We have the means to prevent that happening and we should stop delaying. We should act now to protect them. The Liberal Democrats will support the motion today. I urge the Minister to do so, and to consider the additional problem of fleecehold arrangements when she brings leasehold reform to the House.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 20, as well as new clauses 1 and 2, tabled in my name. I note the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who tabled amendments with very similar objectives to my own. This Bill is a disappointment to all businesses who are struggling through tough financial conditions. Not only are prices going up for every single purchase that they make, but many small businesses were forced to lock into gas and electricity contracts at astronomical rates last year and are no longer receiving any meaningful support with those energy costs. They may also be struggling with interest rate rises on their borrowings following the period of economic chaos caused by the Government last autumn.

This Government committed to reviewing the system of business rates fundamentally in their 2019 manifesto, but this Bill offers only peripheral changes to an outdated system that does not work for a modern economy. The Bill offers to change the timescale of revaluations from every five years to every three years. This is a welcome reduction, but Liberal Democrats believe that it does not go far enough. The reality for businesses is that a three-year gap between revaluations means that they will continue to pay rates that are far from reflective of the real economic conditions they are operating in. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 would require non-domestic rating lists to be compiled every year and make every year from now on a relevant period for transitional provision under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Annual revaluations are possible. We only need to look to the Netherlands, where they have been taking place since 1995. There, rateable values are allowed to move with the local economy. This means the tax that businesses are required to pay better reflects the conditions that they face.

I also want to spend a little time on amendment 20, tabled in my name. It is estimated that as a result of the Bill as it stands, 700,000 small businesses who currently pay no business rates at all will need to submit annual reports to the Valuation Office Agency, even when there has been no change to the premises they occupy. These small businesses, like many in North Shropshire, are already plagued by seemingly endless monthly and quarterly Office for National Statistics returns, along with their ongoing tax and financial reporting requirements.

The Bill adds yet another administrative hoop for these businesses to jump through and threatens hefty penalties if forms are completed incorrectly. This piles unnecessary pressure on to small businesses and it will not raise any more tax for public services. These businesses already receive a notification to inform the VOA if there is a material change in their premises, so there is nothing to be gained from this element of the Bill. Amendment 20 attempts to deal with this problem by removing the requirement for annual reporting of no change for those businesses in receipt of small business rate relief. I urge the Minister to support amendment 20, which I intend to push to a vote, and to cut unnecessary red tape for the small businesses we desperately need to help, in order to drive economic growth and breathe new life into the high streets of our historic market towns.

I also wish to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name. It seems very one-sided to impose punitive fines on businesses for failing to report updates to the VOA on time, without any reciprocal expectations of that agency. As I outlined on Second Reading, dealing with the VOA over changes to a premises can be a protracted affair, and all the time that that is going on, businesses face uncertainty about their rates liability and, critically, cannot plan their cash flow. New clause 1 would require the VOA to report to the Secretary of State on its performance in detail at least once a year. This report should correspond to targets to be set by the Secretary of State. The new clause also calls for the findings of these reports to be laid before Parliament. I have suggested targets, rather than legally binding levels of service, to reflect the fact that no two premises are the same and that updates can be complex and can be challenged, but those targets would at least set an expectation of performance and ensure some accountability for the VOA.

Lastly, I wish to draw attention to new clause 2. I think there is general agreement on both sides of the Committee that we want to see our high streets and market towns thrive. This is especially true in places such as the five historic towns in my North Shropshire constituency, where the local high street is not just a practical place to go to but a social lifeline for many residents. Those high street shops are in competition with online retailers whose warehouse premises have a much lower rateable value per metre squared, putting the high street at a disadvantage. This was confirmed in the Treasury Committee’s “Impact of business rates on business” report in 2019.

Disappointingly, however, the Bill does not take this discrepancy into consideration. Instead, the Government will continue to drain physical retailers through rates that do not reflect the challenges they are already facing, leaving many at a tipping point and struggling to compete on an unfair playing field. New clause 2 would require a review of the impact of non-domestic rateable values on competition in different parts of the retail sector, so that Members could understand the true scale of the issue and inform policy accordingly. This review should be commissioned within six weeks after the date this Act is passed. Overall, I urge Ministers to support these amendments and new clauses in order to improve the Bill, which is just not ambitious enough in fundamentally reforming an out-of-date tax system.

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

I am grateful to all colleagues across the Committee for their contributions today. I think all of us spoke on the Bill’s Second Reading, and we have rehearsed the arguments on a number of these points already. It is important to reiterate from the Government Front Bench that this Bill delivers significant reforms for the business rate system. It increases the frequency of revaluations, which I think has been generally welcomed across the Committee today. It also modernises the administration of the tax and it provides new reliefs to support things such as property improvements. Taken along with the nearly £14 billion-worth of taxpayer subsidy for businesses this year, it helps to manage the tax burden amid the ongoing pressures that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned.

I will now turn to the contributions that hon. Members and hon. Friends have made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made an incredibly constructive set of comments, and I completely understand the sentiments behind many of the amendments he has tabled. He set a challenge at the outset of his speech, saying that he is looking to move towards annual valuations, the removal of complications and the adoption of digitalisation. We are making progress in two of those three areas, which I hope is not bad, and he has indicated that, overall, this is a step in the right direction. We are moving from five-yearly valuations—in reality, they have happened every seven or eight years in some instances in recent years, for good reason—to three-yearly valuations. We are moving towards the collection of further digital data, and we are continuing to support businesses, where we can, through the reliefs we have put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

The leader of the Liberal Democrats continues to speak to the media and in this place about tens of billions or hundreds of billions of pounds of additional spending. If we were to remove the income from business rates, the Liberal Democrats would have to ask themselves where they would get that money from and how they would pay for the black holes created in our tax system.

[Helen Morgan]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Lady is going to tell me exactly where she would find several hundred billion pounds to fill her black hole.

[Helen Morgan]

Amendment 20 is about cutting red tape for small businesses. Does the Minister agree that he is talking about policy objectives that are not relevant to the Bill?

[Lee Rowley]

That tells us everything we need to know about the Liberal Democrats. They want to talk about only this Bill, ignoring every other policy. They look one way when talking to one part of the country, and the other way when talking to the other part of the country. That shows the Liberal Democrats’ lack of seriousness in understanding how taxation actually works, in understanding how to run a modern, dynamic market economy and in understanding how we need to pay our way to make sure our economy is successful in the long term. It is for those reasons that we oppose amendment 20.

Voter ID

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When Labour Ministers introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland, they set out in great detail why the legislation was necessary. Why is it good enough for one valued part of our United Kingdom but not good enough for the electors of Great Britain?

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

As the Local Government Association indicated earlier this month, and as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has reiterated, there are significant practical problems for polling clerks. Meanwhile, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has said that discussions are taking place with the police for extra resources on polling day. With a week to go, can the Minister confirm whether enough polling clerks have been recruited and whether additional police resources have been secured to support the additional burden next Thursday? What strain will this place on police services?

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight all the practical work that is going on, and I want to thank local authorities very much for the way they have delivered those additional measures that are going to be needed, backed by £4.75 million of central Government funding through the new burdens process. Of course, the Government will take very seriously all the lessons learned about this exercise, but I return once more to the point: when this process was introduced in Northern Ireland, under a Labour Government, none of the issues that are being raised regularly by Opposition Members were found to have turned out in practice to be the case.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Let me begin by declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Authority.

Overall, this was a disappointing Budget for North Shropshire and for rural communities across the country. Instead of allocating levelling-up funding on the basis of need, councils will once again be forced to spend thousands in consultant and officer time, competing against each other for small pots of money which, ultimately, they may not win. Surely it is time to assess the needs of each area objectively and invest accordingly. Personally, I would not consider a marginal seat to be an indication of need, but Wednesday’s statement shamelessly funnelled funding into marginal seats, largely ignoring the urgent need in rural Britain for investment in public transport and key infrastructure.

I would welcome clarity from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the proposals for local enterprise partnerships. The LEP in the Marches covers a number of local authority areas, and has been a driver of public and private sector investment. How will its activities be effectively absorbed across a number of different overstretched councils?

The rest of the Budget was largely taking with one hand and giving away with the other. Money to repair potholes is welcome, but the entire national potholes budget would probably not be enough to repair the badly neglected roads of Shropshire, while the active travel fund, which might have brought real benefits to all areas, has been cut. The £63 million to keep swimming pools open is welcome, but it involves another largely competitive bidding process for capital investment and energy efficiency measures. Community Leisure UK still predicts that many pools will be unable to reopen without additional funding to help with the soaring energy bills that forced them to close in the first place.

The Chancellor claimed that 100% capital allowances for businesses investing in plant and machinery would offset their corporation tax rise, but those businesses have to have the cash to invest and they need to be turning a profit to offset those capital allowances against. Rural businesses in North Shropshire have told me that the astronomical cost of energy means that they are struggling to stay afloat, not turning a comfortable profit or generating cash to invest.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

A very easy way to help small businesses to grow is to do something about the VAT tax threshold, which has not increased in line with inflation since 2017. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is preventing businesses from growing further and that the Government could have done that instead of stealth-taxing small businesses?

[Helen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree.

Duty on draught beer has been cut, and that is obviously welcome for the pubs that sit at the heart of the communities in our towns and villages, but many small businesses were locked into gas and electricity contracts last year in a period of soaring prices as a result of the terrible invasion of Ukraine. Just this morning, I was contacted by a popular village pub to say that it was facing closure—despite always being too busy to fit me in for a table. It is facing a fourfold increase in its energy costs, but this Budget has cut the support that it is going to be offered, even while wholesale prices fall and it costs the Government less.

We all want to get people back into work, but there has been a real-terms cut to the public health budget, with nothing more for adult and children’s social care at a time when illness and caring responsibilities have placed enormous pressure on the workforce across every sector. Staff shortages underpin the crises in social care, the health service and the wider rural economy, and we feel them strongly in North Shropshire. In summary, this is a missed opportunity for North Shropshire and for rural communities across Britain.

Adult Social Care

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is lovely to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for their excellent speeches. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

When the Government announced their local government funding settlement for the upcoming year and the additional £2.3 billion in grant funding at the autumn statement designated for social care, I welcomed that additional funding, despite concerns that much of the rest of the money will come from increased council tax. We are passing the buck from Government to local councils and, ultimately, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East outlined eloquently, to local taxpayers who may not immediately see the benefit of the tax they are paying.

That funding will plug in the short term the gap in budgets caused by inflationary pressure, but we need to be mindful that 542,000 people are already waiting for care package assessments or direct payments and there are thousands of vacancies in England, according to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. The County Councils Network warns that councils and care providers are facing a perfect storm, as I am sure we are all aware, of rising demand, fewer care home beds, chronic staff shortages and acute inflationary pressures.

Shropshire is certainly no exception to that scenario. My meetings with local care providers have consistently shown that the sector is becoming fundamentally unstable, with some providers left facing a choice between losing money, or handing their contracts back to the council and restricting themselves to private work. We should acknowledge that social care is becoming a two-tier sector, where people who can afford a large amount of care in their home every day receive a very good service from skilled and caring workers who come and attend them, but those who are left with only a short visit in their own home see a much worse situation. I have seen that first-hand on an ambulance shift. It is heartbreaking to see people whose carers have popped in on a rushed schedule. They clearly care and have written everything down in the book—in one case, they had called the ambulance—but they do not have time to ensure that those individuals are living in the dignity they deserve. We need to ensure that that variation and those dual standards are addressed in the solutions we propose.

We have also seen that a shortage of care options is a factor in the acute emergency department and ambulance response crisis that Shropshire has faced, because people who are unable to be discharged home are restricting the patient flow through hospitals and ultimately stopping people coming in through the front door.

Today, I would like to raise in particular the challenges faced in the long-term learning disability and autism sector. In this sector, where people with learning disabilities need long-term care, the providers often do not have private clients from whom they can cross-subsidise their council-funded packages. My attention was drawn to that just before Christmas when I was alerted to the fact that three individuals in my consistency, who have lived in a care home together and been cared for by the same care home manager for more than 20 years, faced being split up and rehomed just three weeks before Christmas. Worse than that, because their levels of need were high and the care in North Shropshire met this need, they had come from across the United Kingdom and were funded by different councils. If their care home closes because of cost pressure, they will most likely be split from each other. As I am sure we can all imagine, the impact on those individuals would be extremely severe. I was grateful in this case that their provider was able to reassess their situation and keep them together in the same location, but the funding in this sector is so precarious that there is no guarantee that will be maintained.

As I understand it, the fair cost of care exercise excluded many social care services for people with learning disabilities, autism or severe mental health problems. In learning disability and autism services, a recent survey showed that 71% of providers have handed back a contract, declined to deliver a service or considered doing so in the past 12 months. Some 83% are subsidising services as charitable organisations that should be paid for in full by the state. We can all recognise that is fundamentally unsustainable, and I urge the Minister to consider some of the excellent suggestions from colleagues to stabilise this growing sector caring for our most vulnerable people.

Part of the cause of the instability across the whole sector is the fact that rising minimum wage levels have not been matched by funding from central Government to local councils, and therefore from those councils on to the providers. The national living wage increased by 6.6% from 1 April 2022, and it will go up by a further 9.7% from 1 April 2023. Clearly, that is necessary to deal with the cost of living crisis, and I am not here to begrudge care workers that increase. The staff in the sector are providing caring, highly skilled support, and they deserve to be recognised with a fair pay packet for the work they do.

In rural parts of Britain, such as North Shropshire, home care and community-based services are also seeing pressure from high fuel costs, and the council funding they receive does not take into account either the additional fuel they use travelling around such a large area, or the additional dead time there is between visits to people in rural places. In October 2022, Shropshire Partners in Care, an organisation of care providers in Shropshire, conducted a survey of its members, in which only 18% of respondents said that they felt the fees provided by the council covered their costs on a weekly basis. More than half confirmed that they have reduced the number of council-funded packages or places they are willing to accept.

When I meet care providers in my constituency and carers at work when I am on the doorstep, I am struck by their passion for providing high-quality care for their clients, but I have also been struck by the distress that the cost and recruitment pressures are placing on providers, because they are affecting the quality of service they deliver. The problem is nationwide, too. A Liberal Democrat councillor and friend in Cambridgeshire told me they are seeing an urgent crisis in adult social care there, too. They are facing an estimated 40% projected rise in funding for the elderly, but they have not got the Government funding to match, so they are looking at a £23 million funding gap going forward. They have nursing homes with 50% vacancy rates at peak points during the winter.

I urge the Minister to commit to looking at the long-term settlement for councils, because these costs, as colleagues have already described in great detail, will only increase. We need to ensure that we are fully funding the cost increases for care providers, so that people can receive the care they need and deserve, whether in a care home or, ideally, in their own home. The settlement also needs to take rurality into account and reflect the additional costs incurred when carers are travelling such long distances between homes. It is critical that councils have the flexibility to spend the funding they have been allocated in the most appropriate way for their own area and the requirements of their local demographic.

The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have called for a fully funded carers minimum wage set at least £2 above the national average, and paid for by a tax on online gambling platforms, to address the recruitment and retention challenges that are knocking into other areas of social and NHS care. Our increased wage would be centrally funded and it would ease the pressures on councils to find savings from elsewhere to meet their social care needs. The Care Quality Commission’s 2022 state of care report stated that

“our health and care system is in gridlock and this is clearly having a huge negative impact on people’s experiences of care.”

It went on to say:

“At the heart of these problems are staff shortages and struggles to recruit and retain staff right across health and care.”

I urge the Minister to consider the points that we have raised, to consider the crucial nature of ensuring that care workers are paid fairly so that they can be recruited and retained, and to consider that whatever the plan is going forwards, it needs to ensure that councils have certainty about their future funding. I urge him to take note of the pressures and to work with his Treasury colleagues to address some of the huge challenges that we have outlined today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, substantial additional funding has gone into the system. I am always happy to discuss the best way that that should be structured—obviously that is a multi-departmental discussion—but I hope there is an acknowledgement that additional funding has gone into the system and continues to go in. The additional information given in our announcements about the remainder of the spending review, over the coming financial year and the year after, demonstrates our commitment to do that. We hope that will have a positive impact on the challenges that have been articulated.

Finally, I want to talk about the long term, which hon. Members from across the House raised in their speeches. We acknowledge that there is a desire, and it is important to try to plan for the long term. We will bring forward a plan for adult social care reform in the spring. I hope that will answer some of the questions that hon. and right hon. Members have raised and assuage some of their concerns locally. To answer the challenge from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) about a long-term settlement for councils, while some of the long-term nature of that is debatable, I hope that the broader policy statement, which the Government announced several weeks ago with the local government finance settlement, demonstrates our intent to move forward with a longer-term understanding of what councils can expect to receive from Government, where we are able to do that. As I have highlighted, in the long term we are also seeking to introduce new elements to government, such as the office for local government, which hopefully will provide information not just about what is happening, but information that explains in more detail how local government is spending that money.

[Helen Morgan]

rose—

[Lee Rowley]

I have detained the House, but I will be happy to give way briefly.

[Helen Morgan]

I am grateful to the Minister. The point about long-term funding is so important. Until a couple of weeks ago, care providers in Shropshire did not know by how much their rates would increase in the new financial year, and they were considering handing their contracts back. It would have cost the council a fortune just to find someone who was willing to fulfil some of those care packages. Councils need long-term funding for their own financial stability and to find care packages at an achievable cost.

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to confirm that the Government are trying, where we are able, to offer greater visibility of what is coming and greater long-term understanding. We will continue to try to do that across the local government finance settlement, and I hope this policy statement is an indication of that.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

It is regrettable that the Government have chosen to not support Georgia’s law. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to think again today, and I commend new clause 7 to the House.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for mishearing the names earlier. I add my support for Georgia’s law, and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have recently been appointed as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43, which stand in my name. On Second Reading, I put on record that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the Bill. We will be supporting it, despite the fact that it has taken a long time to arrive, and we also broadly welcome the amendments tabled by the Government today. The amendments that I have tabled and will speak to today are intended to improve the legislation in the spirit of co-operation, and to ensure that there is fairness and accountability for people living in social housing and that, ultimately, everyone has a decent and safe home to return to at the end of each day.

Data from Shelter estimates that there are over 270,000 homeless people in the UK, and that a significant cause of those cases is a lack of social housing provision. Tragically, many people who become homeless find that there are no available social homes, and are often placed on long waiting lists for safe, permanent accommodation. Sometimes, they have nowhere to turn to other than charities, relatives or, indeed, their local Member of Parliament. Housing issues are one of the biggest and, frankly, most upsetting topics in my casework, and I know that my experience is not unusual among colleagues.

Amendment 41 would give the regulator the additional objective

“to safeguard and promote the interests of persons who are or who may become homeless”

due to a lack of social housing provision. On its own, that measure would not eradicate homelessness, but it would create an additional focus on finding a solution to what is an unacceptable situation. This country has a chronic shortage of social housing, which is forcing families to live in dangerous and unsuitable conditions. Just this week, while I was out canvassing in my constituency, I chatted on the doorstep to a lady whose daughter uses a wheelchair, but they do not have any level access to their house. Her need has been assessed and she is in the gold band, at the top of the list for an alternative, but there is simply nothing available in North Shropshire at the moment that meets her family’s requirements. I have been dealing with a similar situation in relation to a constituent with breathing difficulties whose flat has just been treated for mould. Again, she has been given the right priority for a move with her family, but no suitable alternatives are available.

With nearly 1.2 million people on social housing waiting lists, it is not surprising that we all have examples in our casework such as those I have cited. I have spoken previously in this place about ensuring that when social housing is sold under the right to buy, the housing association or local authority receives 100% of the sale proceeds, in order to increase the likelihood of maintaining social housing stock at at least current levels. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of today’s Bill, but amendment 42 would require the regulator to provide a report to the Government about the adequacy of social housing stock, and to

“make recommendations to the Secretary of State on how to ensure that the provision of social housing is…sufficient.”

It would mean that this House has the opportunity to understand the state of our social housing stock, and to hold the Government of the day to account in ensuring that that stock is adequate.

Amendment 42 would also require the regulator to report to Government on progress with the removal of cladding and, again, make recommendations to ensure that progress is finally being made on that critical issue for people living in social housing. The tireless campaigning by so many after the Grenfell tragedy is the reason we are all here today debating this Bill. In my view, the Bill is a good opportunity to make sure that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that social housing is safe and that progress is properly scrutinised. I do not think that these measures are onerous in nature. They would provide valuable information to the Government, and I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 42, which I intend to move formally later.

Moving on to amendment 43, I note that in its current form, the Bill presents a discrepancy in notice periods before the Regulator of Social Housing conducts a survey. The registered provider of the premises is granted 48 hours, while the tenant is given a notice period of only 24 hours. Amendment 43 would ensure that registered providers and occupiers of the premises were treated equally. A similar amendment tabled by colleagues in the other place had cross-party support. The amendment would help to ensure parity in the relationship between tenant and housing provider and would not place an additional onerous requirement on any party, so I urge the Minister to consider adopting it.

The Bill has been brought forward as a result of the terrible tragedies at Grenfell and, more recently, the harrowing death of Awaab Ishak. I welcome the Secretary of State’s intention to prevent a repeat of such incidents in the future. New clause 9 would allow the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves its objectives and improves the safety and quality of social housing both in its own terms and in comparison with the safety and quality of housing in the private rented sector. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on that point. The new clause provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and unforeseen consequences of a change in the regulatory environment.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome this legislation. We fully support the objective of empowering those living in social housing to ensure that their homes are decent and safe, and we have put on record our view that we would have liked to have seen the Bill sooner. I urge the Government to adopt new clause 9 and amendments 41, 42 and 43. It is my view that they would improve the legislation in a manageable way and ensure that we improve not only the condition, but the availability of social housing and that we hold the Government of the day to account in making these improvements happen in reality.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 8, which stands in my name and that of a number of other Members. The amendment is simple. It would make the regulator responsible for ensuring that local authorities enforce the homelessness code of guidance for temporary accommodation. It proposes that local authority housing departments are inspected in the same way as schools and children’s social services departments are inspected by Ofsted to ensure that the standard required by the guidance is being met and that families who have been accepted as homeless, but cannot be placed in a permanent home due to shortage, are provided with suitable temporary homes.

Temporary accommodation is defined formally as being provided to people who are either awaiting the outcome of a homelessness application under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 or waiting for an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. I find it hard to believe that any Member of this House who represents a constituency in London, the south-east, Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle is not aware of the sort of accommodation in which homeless families are often placed in an emergency. With access to permanent social housing and private rented properties at an all-time low, councils are under extreme pressure to find temporary accommodation. The best national estimates we have are that around 1.6 million households are waiting for social housing. Over the past 40 years, the overall social housing stock has declined by 1.4 million homes.

In my authority of Merton—not known for being under the extreme pressure of other London boroughs—last year the council only had 72 two-beds, 34 three-beds and two four-bedroom units to offer all year. At the same time, the number of families in temporary accommodation has risen by 41% since April, from 243 to 343 households. Merton is not alone or unusual. Most London boroughs count their homeless families in temporary accommodation in the thousands. Tonight, there will be 99,270 families, including 125,760 children, sleeping in temporary accommodation at a massive cost of £1.6 billion. That is an increase of 71% between 2012 and 2018, and a further increase of 41% between 2018 and 2022. Hard-pressed local authorities are seeking out ever more temporary accommodation that is uninspected and further away. The code of guidance specifies the nature and location of temporary accommodation. We all know that those are laudable aims, but they are not being met.

Throughout my speech, I will provide examples of where the code of guidance has specific standards that are not being met in practice. I want to make it clear that I do not blame councils for the situation they find themselves in. They are in a bind: they do not have access to enough social housing units, their funding has been consistently cut, they do not have access to the number of environmental health officers they need, and they have a never-ending list of homeless families that they are desperate to house. This is a toxic mix with tragic consequences.

Voter Identification

Helen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the roll-out of voter identification.

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

Democracy is precious. The United Kingdom’s electoral system has a hard-earned reputation for transparency and integrity, and that needs regular review and, where appropriate, enhancement to ensure that it works today just as it did in the past.

One of the most basic principles of voting is that the people who cast their votes are eligible to do so. The introduction of voter identification at polling stations from May will be another lock in ensuring that the integrity of our democracy is protected for the long term. Nor is this anything new: voter identification has been in place in Northern Ireland for nearly 20 years. As for elections in Great Britain, this Government stood on a manifesto that said we would introduce it, won on the basis of doing so, introduced legislation to fulfil that commitment, and are now delivering on that promise. We will not shirk our responsibilities to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

According to Government research, about 98% of the electorate already have an accepted voter ID, whether it is a passport, a driving licence or one of nearly 20 other eligible types of identification. That includes, for some, expired identification, in order to maximise participation. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people already have what they need to fulfil this new protection at the ballot box. For those who do not, the Government have made available a voter authority certificate, which can be applied for today. It is free of charge and can be issued to everyone who wants it in readiness for May. To date, more than 21,000 applications have been made. Hon. Members will likely have seen—as have I, along with many millions of others—the extensive communications campaigns now under way, run by the Electoral Commission and, at a local level, by individual councils. Those will continue all the way up to May.

There are few tasks more important in public life than maintaining the trust of the British public in our electoral institutions and our electoral processes. A huge amount of work is under way, and that will continue until May. I am grateful to officials, to the Electoral Commission and to councils up and down the land for the work that they are doing. We are taking action to strengthen the integrity of those institutions and processes and to protect the sanctity of the vote. It is now incumbent on all Members—having had the debate and having resolved to do this last year—to send a collective clear signal that this change is important to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and that we should all get ready for this to happen in May.

[Helen Morgan]

For months and months, Members on the Opposition side of the House have fought the Government’s voter ID plans tooth and nail. We have warned that this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, and that it is a thinly veiled attempt to make it far more difficult for people to vote.

This morning I was appalled to read new statistics relating to the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID, revealing that of the estimated 2 million people who will now need a new form of ID—a voter authority certificate—in order to vote, just 1% have applied for it. And of that tiny number—not even 21,000—a tiny minority are older people or young people, groups who we were warned risked being disenfranchised under these new plans. We are just 10 weeks away from the local elections. Safeguarding our democracy and the fundamental right to vote should be the priority of any responsible Government.

I therefore urge the Minister to answer the following questions. What are the Government going to do to fix this? In particular, how are they going to target groups who have limited access to the internet to ensure that they do not lose out? What engagement will take place with local authorities and what support will be provided? It seems absurd that local authorities might have to pay the cost of the Government’s botched roll-out of voter ID.

Will the Minister commit to, at the very least, pausing this year’s roll-out? He will be aware of the Electoral Commission’s analysis that this roll-out means that the May elections cannot be run in a

“fully secure, accessible and workable”

manner. Will the Government expand the list of acceptable forms of ID so that fewer people have to apply for a local authority certificate? Many Members were rightly concerned when it was revealed last autumn that some forms of student ID were not included in the list. Do the Government have any handle on the level of awareness among the general public regarding the need to bring ID with them to vote in May? I would say that the Government were sleepwalking into a disaster, but I am afraid that, to me, this looks a little more cynical.

[Lee Rowley]

We are clearly going to have a discussion today in which hon. Members have every right, should they wish, to use quite outrageous rhetoric in relation to this basic, fundamental change to ensure that we protect the integrity of the ballot box. I would encourage them to think carefully about how they approach this during the urgent question.

To answer the hon. Lady’s questions specifically, I need to take on this notion that there are 2 million people who need voter ID. That is absolutely not correct and I hope that hon. Members will stop reiterating it. Of those 2 million people—which is an estimate—a large number will not have elections in their area this year. Secondly, of that group, a number will choose not to vote, much as we would like them to do so. They may have chosen never to vote, and although we would encourage them to do so, that is ultimately the purpose of a democracy: people have a right to vote and a right not to vote. We are seeking to encourage them to vote and seeking to guarantee that integrity. There may also have been a choice for people to change to postal votes. We are continuing to work to encourage take-up where it is necessary, but it is fundamentally incorrect for hon. Members in this House to suggest that some form of target is being missed.

The hon. Lady also asked what we were going to do to target groups. We are already doing that. We have engaged on multiple levels at multiple times with those who could be hard to reach, and we will continue to do that all the way up until May. It is not correct that local authorities are paying the cost, as she suggested. New burdens funding has been paid and there will be a true-up process afterwards to ensure that people are not out of pocket. The list of means of identification that the hon. Lady asked to be expanded already had more than 20 on it, including passports and driving licences. As I said in my initial response, that includes some instances where expiration had happened. I would encourage the Liberal Democrats and other hon. Members to understand that we are seeking to ensure that the sanctity of the ballot box can be protected, and I wish that they would support these reasonable and proportionate measures to do that.