Ambassador to the United States

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important emergency debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing it.

My right hon. Friend made a series of excellent points, as did the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I agree with all those points. It is extraordinary that, on the eve of the President’s state visit, we are talking about the US ambassador who has been sacked in scandal.

There are many unanswered questions, and I will be asking many of them, but today the Prime Minister needs to do three things. The Prime Minister needs to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it—not send his junior Ministers to cover for him. The Prime Minister needs to publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But the Prime Minister is not here, because he is hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions. I know that he is a busy man, but confidence in him and in his Government rests on him being able to account for what happened, and so far no one is taking any responsibility.

We have had our ambassador in the US sacked over his relationship with a man convicted of child sex offences. What is more—this tells us everything we need to know—this was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his chief of staff. We have seen a political ally pushed ahead of qualified candidates because the Prime Minister and Morgan McSweeney admired his talent for mixing with the rich and powerful, despite his known links to a man who was publicly known as a convicted paedophile and a convicted sex trafficker.

Given the speeches we have heard and everything that is in the public domain, it is now very clear that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. It is now also clear that the Prime Minister knew that there were major concerns when he came to this House just last Wednesday. Instead of taking action, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in him. Why on earth did he do so? Was he poorly advised, or was it just his own poor judgment?

In every single one of his Government’s scandals to date, far from being the decisive man of conscience he promised to be, the Prime Minister has shrivelled from leadership, he has dodged responsibility, and he has hidden behind others, just as he is doing today, and he has come to this House and hidden behind process and lawyerly phrases. The Prime Minister has shown no courage, no judgment, no backbone. If he cannot see it and Government Members cannot see it, I can assure them that the British public can. The Prime Minister has turned out to be everything he claimed to abhor. This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it. I will be interested to see how many of them stand up to defend their Government.

The British public and, especially, the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve the Prime Minister, for once, to be straight and honest with us. He must immediately do three things. First, he must apologise to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for ever having appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador. How is it that this has still not happened? There has been no apology. Secondly, as I said, he must publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full—all the information he had at his disposal, both when he made the appointment and when he came to the House last week to express full confidence in Mandelson. Thirdly, he must make sure that someone takes responsibility.

Everyone now agrees that Peter Mandelson should not have been appointed. We have heard so much from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington about endless scandal and conflicts of interest with China and Russia, so why was he appointed? Was it a failure of vetting? Was it that advisers hid information from the Prime Minister? Or was it that the Prime Minister knew and made the decision anyway? Someone needs to take responsibility.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen a rapid transformation from the Prince of Darkness into a grovelling Lord Yum Yum? One has to ask, why was the British Prime Minister surprised? Had he never heard the tale of the turtle and the scorpion that meet at the side of the river? Should the Prime Minister not have realised that the poor old scorpion simply cannot help what is in its nature?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The story is that of the frog and the scorpion, and it is one of my favourite childhood stories. Everyone knew what Lord Mandelson had been up to. It is simply not tenable for any Member on the Government Benches to hold the line on this one, burying their heads in the sand and hoping that it goes away, least of all the Prime Minister.

We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the compromising emails last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, yet he came to the House and said that he had confidence in his ambassador. Many on the Labour Benches cheered, but now they are all looking at their phones, and most of them do not have the courage to look me in the eye. They were cheering last week, and now they are full of shame. [Interruption.] Sorry, are they proud? No, they are not. I will continue.

Why on earth did the Prime Minister do that? At any point did he ask his staff what more information might surface? That morning Lord Mandelson was saying that more information would surface. Did the Prime Minister receive a briefing about that ahead of Prime Minister’s questions? It is inconceivable that he did not. Ministers are now claiming that new information subsequently came to light—new information that they did not have. The story is all mixed and messed up, and they know it. What information appeared that was not in the original vetting? We would like to hear that when the Minister responds.

There are still more questions to answer. When did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff speak with Peter Mandelson last week, and what did they discuss? Do the Government have the courage to tell us that? We are told that Morgan McSweeney spent hours on the phone to the ambassador at the same time that Lord Mandelson was dodging calls from the Foreign Office. What were they talking about?

Those are questions about what happened just last week, but how did all this come to happen last year? The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked some excellent questions. But I ask the Minister this: what led to Lord Mandelson’s appointment in the first place? How was it that a man with known links to a child sex offender came to be appointed?

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

An additional question is whether there was any external influence. Did Tony Blair or any of Mandelson’s friends have anything to do with the appointment?

[Mrs Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question, and I hope the Minister can provide an answer, because all of us across the House want to know.

We want to know how Lord Mandelson’s appointment happened in the first place. As I see it, there are only three possibilities. The first is that it was a failure of vetting, but are we really supposed to believe that this is the fault of the security services? I do not think so. Did they not drag up the intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which was discussed last week? The second possibility—a bit more likely—is that the Prime Minister’s advisers kept information from him. If that happened, it would be incredibly serious.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.

[Mrs Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is a Prime Minister who hides behind everybody else; whether his advisers, his junior Ministers or his Back Benchers, that is what he does. If he wants to blame advisers, which one was it? Who kept it from him? Why have they not apologised and resigned? No one is taking responsibility.

Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington alluded to, the most likely but most worrying reason of all is that the Prime Minister had plenty of information to suggest that Lord Mandelson should not be appointed but chose to appoint him anyway. Even at the time, eyebrows were raised about this appointment and there were many critics; I remember it from the time. Now we read in the papers that the Prime Minister overruled security advice not to appoint Lord Mandelson. Is that true? The Minister should tell us.

It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean. He needs to come out of hiding. This issue will not go away. The Government cannot play for time as we will be back here again and again until all these documents are published. We will be back until someone takes responsibility.

This is a political crisis on top of an economic crisis all of the Government’s own making. They are distracted now, but they came into office with no plan for the country, no idea what they stood for and no vision for what they wanted to achieve. Because of that, they have been lurching from disaster to disaster, with winter fuel, tax rises, welfare chaos, scandal, and the Prime Minister’s failing leadership rebooted after just one year. The only plan they came into office with was a promise they made again and again to the British public: that they would restore honesty and integrity to Government. That was their defining mission, that was their grand plan, and it is in tatters.

So far, in one year, we have had an anti-corruption Minister sacked for corruption, a homelessness Minister sacked for evicting tenants, a Housing Secretary sacked for dodging housing tax, a Transport Secretary sacked for fraud and a director of strategy—apparently the speechwriter—lost only yesterday in scandal.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

indicated dissent.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Minister shakes his head—he should be shaking it in shame. I have not said anything that is not true.

Now, finally, we have a US ambassador sacked for his links with a known child sex offender. The Government claim to care about violence against women and girls, until they actually have to do something about it. Where is the apology to those victims?

I know the Prime Minister does not like difficult questions, but it is his judgment that is being called into question. He owes it to the country to come clean.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?

[Stephen Doughty]

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?

Building Regulations: Public Toilet Provision

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

Toilets, both in municipal and private sector locations, are an important facility for members of the public, in particular, women, those with children, older people and disabled people.

The Government have taken a number of steps recently to support the increased provision of ‘Changing Places’ toilets for disabled people for whom standard accessible toilets are not suitable. Last year, the Government introduced 100% business rates relief for public toilets in England and Wales.

In October 2020, Government published a review: Toilet provision for men and women: call for evidence. This stemmed from evidence that shows that increasing numbers of publicly accessible toilets are being converted into ‘gender neutral’ facilities, causing problems for women and older people in particular.

‘Gender neutral’ facilities mean men and women share the same space for waiting and hand wash facilities; these should be contrasted with dedicated, self-contained ‘unisex’ toilets which maintain privacy for the single user (also known as ‘universal toilets’).

Such ‘gender neutral’ toilets place women at a significant disadvantage. While men can then use both cubicles and urinals, women can only use the former. The net effect is actually to reduce toilet provision for women. Women also need safe spaces given their particular biological, health and sanitary needs (for example, women who are menstruating, pregnant or at menopause, may need to use the toilet more often). Women are also likely to feel less comfortable using mixed sex facilities.

The review also asked for views on increasing the ratio of female toilets. Male toilets typically allow for a quicker transition of customers due to the use of urinals, yet insufficient female toilets are provided for a comparative number of cubicles to allow the same number of users to be served. This is not to disadvantage any sex - but greater ratios of female cubicles would help avoid queues inside and outside toilets.

The Government are also aware of broader concerns that women’s biological differences are being ‘erased’ in public life. It is important that women’s biological needs are respected and taken into account in the provision of facilities such as toilets. A high volume of responses were received to the call for evidence, all of which have been read and analysed.

The call for evidence analysis has been carefully considered, and research has been commissioned by my Department on the design of toilet facilities. Following on from this, in autumn 2022, the Department will launch a technical consultation on formal changes to the building regulations and approved guidance, informed by the call for evidence responses.

The Government are minded to take the following approach to rules and guidance in England, subject to further consultation and assessment of equality impacts:

Draft Local Authority and Combined Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authority and Combined Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. These regulations, which were laid before the House on Monday 6 June, seek to amend local election rules to account for the new disqualification criteria introduced by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022, which comes into force tomorrow. That Act updates disqualification criteria for local authorities to disqualify individuals convicted of sexual offences who do not receive a custodial sentence. The regulations make the necessary changes to election processes to ensure that future mayoral candidates continue to correctly declare that they are eligible to stand in elections.

Local election rules require candidates to declare that they are not disqualified by signing a consent to nomination form. The format and wording of those forms is prescribed in secondary legislation. These regulations will update those forms to add references to the new criteria for mayoral elections inserted by the 2022 Act. Further, they will require that copies of the relevant new sections of the 2022 Act are reproduced in full and appended to the forms. The regulations make sure that both candidates and electoral administrators have clarity when making those declarations. Implementation of the regulations should not be delayed, as the Act’s provisions come into force tomorrow.

These amendments follow statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission, which supports the need to implement the provisions of the 2022 Act by bringing forward the regulations as soon as possible. The Electoral Commission has updated its guidance to take note of the new disqualification criteria, and will update its nomination packs containing the consent to nomination forms once the regulations are approved. The Government committed to seek legislation that would disqualify sex offenders from local government in our 2018 response to a public consultation on the matter.

To support the Act, I have already amended equivalent election rules for all tiers of councils, the London Assembly and the Mayor of London through the Local Authority and Greater London Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Rules 2022 on 30 May, under the negative procedure. Today’s regulations are the final stage in delivering on that commitment and fully implementing the disqualification of sex offenders.

To summarise, the regulations are necessary for full implementation of the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022. No community should have to tolerate a convicted sex offender standing as its local mayor. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition for supporting today’s SI. Regarding his comments on Northern Ireland, we will work on that issue with devolved Administrations and with Members of this House who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the sponsors of the Local Government (Disqualification) Act, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and Lord Udny-Lister for their work to progress that Act here and in the other place.

To conclude, the electorate in a modern democracy have a right to expect that their mayoral candidates should be of good character. The Government consider that there should be consequences where candidates fall short of the behaviour expected in an inclusive and tolerant society. We must fully implement the disqualification of sex offenders from local government office, and these regulations are the final step in delivering on the Government’s commitment to legislate on this important matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Update

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. That is why the situation at Nottingham City Council is of such concern.

Despite significant support, Nottingham City Council has struggled to resolve serious governance and financial issues. In November 2020, following a number of issues raised in a public interest report published in August 2020 by the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton, a rapid non-statutory review was conducted into the council to review the serious governance and risk management issues associated with its energy company Robin Hood Energy. The report presented by Max Caller CBE highlighted serious governance failings, poor risk management and the pursuit of commercial ventures which had resulted in a significant budget gap and low levels of reserves.

The former Secretary of State appointed an independent improvement and assurance board in January 2021, chaired by Sir Tony Redmond and made up of independent experts, to offer the council advice, expertise and challenge as it sought to address these failings. The board have provided regular assurance reports to the Secretary of State on the council’s progress throughout this time.

In December 2021, the council discovered unlawful accounting practices associated with its ring-fenced housing revenue account (HRA), covering the period 2014-15 to 2020-21 and totalling £15.86 million. In response, the council issued section 114 and section 5 notices and commissioned independent reports from an LGA associate (Richard Penn) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) to understand the scale of the unlawful expenditure and decision-making processes that ultimately led to this situation. These comprehensive reports (“the Reports”) can be found at:

https://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/documents/s133381/Kev%20Findings%20Report%20 for%20Nottinaham%20Citv%20Council.pdf

https://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/documents/s133382/NCC%20HRA%20Phase%202%20Final %20Report%20260422%20002%20-%20FINAL.pdf

The reports paint a deeply concerning picture of serious historic financial and governance failings. This includes the failure of the council and its wholly-owned company Nottingham City Homes (NCH) to maintain the integrity of its HRA ringfence, and NCH operating without strategic oversight given poor client management and governance by the council. The Penn report does not conclude that unlawful accounting practice was a deliberate mechanism to divert funds from the HRA to support the general fund, but provides evidence of cultural failings and a reluctance to escalate issues appropriately, which led to the situation remaining unchallenged over several years. The scale of the unlawful expenditure may also be more substantial than originally thought, with CIPFA now estimating that it could be up to £40 million.

In the light of this evidence, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is failing to comply with its best value duty, and is minded to implement the intervention package set out below to secure compliance with that duty. To that end, and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, officials in my Department have today written to the council seeking representations on the reports and on the proposed intervention package.

I want to place on record that the Secretary of State recognises the actions taken by the current chief executive to address the unlawful HRA expenditure since it was first identified in December last year. He has worked closely and constructively with the improvement and assurance board since January 2021 in addressing the many challenges the authority faces. However, whilst the building blocks of recovery have been put in place, there are many difficult decisions ahead and the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated. The Secretary of State agrees with the board’s assessment that the HRA issue represents a “serious setback” and is concerned that further serious issues may yet be uncovered which could have a severe impact on the authority's ability to maintain and increase the momentum of the required improvements. This lack of assurance, along with the risk of progress stalling or slowing, is significant and the proposed intervention is therefore both necessary and expedient to secure compliance with the best value duty.

The proposed package is centred on the appointment of commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for two years. It is envisaged this will be a shorter and narrower intervention than has been seen previously due to the council being subject to a non-statutory intervention since January 2021. The proposal is for the council, under the oversight of the commissioners, to re-appraise its improvement plan within the first three months of the intervention and report on the delivery of that plan to the Secretary of State every six months.

It is important that the council leads its recovery but that it does not lose momentum in making the necessary improvements. Sir Tony Redmond has forged constructive working relationships with the council leadership and has an intrinsic understanding of the scale and nature of the challenges facing the city. The Secretary of State is therefore minded to appoint Sir Tony Redmond as lead commissioner, subject to representations received on the proposed intervention package.

Given the gravity of the reports’ findings, the Secretary of State is, consequently, proposing to direct the transfer to commissioners all functions associated with:

the governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making by the authority;

the strategic financial management of the authority under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972; and

the appointment and dismissal of persons to positions the holders of which are to be designated as statutory officers, and the designation of those persons as statutory officers under section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972.

I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use these powers, but they must be empowered to do so if they consider that required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.

I am inviting representations from the council on the reports and the Secretary of State’s proposals by 7 July 2022. We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham, to make their views on the Secretary of State’s proposals known. Should the Secretary of State decide to intervene along the lines described here, he will make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint commissioners. I will update the House in due course.

The Government do not take these steps lightly and recognise and respect the role of local councils in our communities and our democracy. The Government also recognise the importance of councils having an effective relationship with their local auditor. I urge all councils to consider whether they could be doing more to ensure they are delivering the good governance that residents deserve, including considering the governance risk and resilience toolkit developed by the centre for governance and scrutiny.

Despite rare cases like Nottingham, as a whole, local authorities in England have a good record of service delivery, transparency, probity, scrutiny, and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. Local councils must continue to act to benefit the communities they serve.

[HCWS135]

Equality of Opportunity: South-East Wakefield

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate and thank him for raising this important subject. His passion for securing the best possible future for his constituency is shared by the Government. I was interested to hear what he had to say about his constituents Zac and Lee. In answer to the question that he just asked, I would say yes; not just the status quo, but our levelling-up agenda will deliver for his constituents and across the country. I will go on to explain that in a moment.

I want to address the hon. Gentleman’s point about the social mobility commissioner. I am going to hazard a guess that the hon. Member did not listen to her speech. I did, and I am afraid to say that his quotation was a misrepresentation of her remarks. I am not sure in which outlet he read it, but what she actually said was that we need to stop obsessing about getting people into Oxford and Cambridge; that there is a rags to riches version of social mobility that assumes people have to go right from the bottom straight to the top, like Dick Whittington, instead of taking steps up the ladder; and that that attitude denigrates lots of good jobs such as teaching and skilled professions. I think that is something that the hon. Gentleman would probably agree with. I am very supportive of the social mobility commissioner and I think he would find her speech interesting. She is a very clever woman, who understands social mobility more than most. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read her state of the nation report when it is released—I think, by the end of this month.

To answer some of the points raised, it is best to go back to the beginning and why we are having these debates. Levelling up is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. We set out a clear commitment to unlock economic prosperity across all areas of the country, including Wakefield and Hemsworth. It is about providing momentum to address long-standing regional inequalities, which the hon. Gentleman clearly articulated, to enable people to pursue life chances that have previously been out of reach. To quote the White Paper, “Stay local, go far.” His point that work in previous times was in the village—so that people did not have to commute—and that that does not work for today’s society was well made. That is something we recognise. Those structural inequalities will not be addressed by simply spending more money. We need to do better.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues for rural constituencies. I represent a rural constituency, and I know that the Government have been funding a lot of schemes to provide mobility for those people who are cut off. I asked for information and was told that there is a fund that is devolved to the Mayor of West Yorkshire. She has £1.4 billion for transport improvements across West Yorkshire. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to speak to her to address some of these issues. As he said, not everything can be done in Whitehall, and I hope he can work with her.

Some £370 million has been provided to West Yorkshire Combined Authority for projects aimed at improving and investing in public and sustainable transport, and that covers Wakefield as well. I know that not all of Wakefield is in the hon. Gentleman’s patch, but that is something he should speak to the Mayor about. I do not know the specifics—I suspect these are in the city—but projects include cycle routes from Wakefield Kirkgate rail station and improved access to Wakefield bus station. As he said, where those buses come and go is not just about the stations, but the communities that they pass in between.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned local government funding cuts. As Minister for local government, that is something I hear from Opposition Members again and again, and I will repeat what I always say: nobody likes cuts, certainly not this Government. We had to make them because we were compelled to by the financial situation we found when we came into government, which was left by the previous Labour Government. We are fixing many of the problems, which we have not been able to fix for a very long time. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that when I talk about the funding we are providing to his area.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned broadband, and I recognise some of the points he made. I want to let him and his constituents know that the Government have invested heavily over a number of years through the Building Digital UK programme and other funding streams. Some 99% of West Yorkshire will have access to superfast broadband by October of this year. The vast majority of the region, including Wakefield, already has access to superfast broadband, with speeds of at least 30 megabits per second. If he does not find that in Hemsworth, he should write to my colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, so that they can pick that up specifically. I do not know enough about that programme to provide more information, beyond what I have just said.

Levelling up is about enabling local places to determine and support their own economic priorities. It is not just about the Government handing out money and telling areas what to do. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a devolution deal with West Yorkshire, and I talked about the funding that has gone to the metro Mayor, Tracy Brabin, who was elected last year. But in addition to that investment fund, the devolution deal includes a range of powers and funding streams, which are now transferred to the mayoral combined authority, including for the adult education budget and transport, as well as responsibility for the police and crime commissioner. We are handing powers closer to the people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Since Mayor Brabin’s election the Government have awarded £830 million of additional funding for sustainable transport schemes across West Yorkshire, demonstrating the difference that clear and visible leadership can make to local economies. Building on local priorities, we are also providing West Yorkshire with £217 million from the towns fund, £50 million of which is in Wakefield, and more than £72 million through the first round of the levelling-up fund, which I know the hon. Gentleman is aware of—he referred to the £20 million for Wakefield. The previous local growth funding, which amounts to £695 million for West Yorkshire, has also enabled the Wakefield South East Gateway, which will deliver 2,500 new homes on the City Fields development, as well as the completion of the Wakefield waterfront. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that this funding demonstrates the scale of the Government’s commitment to working with Mayors, local MPs and other local leaders to deliver for their cities, towns and villages. I encourage him to work with Tracy Brabin to ensure that this large investment programme really benefits all parts of Wakefield, including south-east Wakefield.

The hon. Gentleman said that his constituency would need £86 billion to level up to London, but it is not a fair comparison. He mentioned that his is a rural constituency. What we need to do is make sure that areas are able to develop as much as they should within the parameters around them. Not everywhere can have 8 million to 14 million people, tube networks and so on, and I do not think that his constituents would necessarily want that.

I mention the levelling-up fund specifically because I have been told that there has been additional funding from the getting building fund, which has supported two enterprise zones, at Langthwaite and South Kirkby business parks—both in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency —to stimulate business growth and create local employment opportunities. I am sure he welcomes the multimillion-pound cross-Government investment to expand the unique Production Park—the live events campus in his constituency —which is supporting local people into good-quality apprenticeships and jobs in this growing creative industry. On the same site sits the new Backstage Academy, which will provide the next generation of live industry and media professionals. It is delivering degree-level education to over 200 students, with an industry focus so that more than 90% of students have secured employment before they complete the course.

The £4.8 billion we are investing through the levelling-up fund is providing the tools for local areas across the country to invest in their infrastructure, improve everyday life by regenerating their town centres and high streets, and invest in cultural and heritage assets. As the hon. Gentleman said, Wakefield was successful in securing £20 million through the first round of the fund, to support the expansion of the Tileyard North development and to transform a derelict site with a new cultural offer celebrating Wakefield’s heritage. This will bolster Wakefield’s position as a growing hub for the creative industries and bring with it good-quality jobs.

In the levelling-up fund prospectus, we recognise the crucial role of MPs in championing the interests of their communities and understanding local priorities. That is why we expect bidding authorities to consult local MPs fully as part of their bid development, with MPs able to officially endorse in writing one priority bid for their local area. That ensures that MPs have a hugely positive role in shaping bids, perhaps helping to broker a local consensus on what their area really needs. I note the work the hon. Gentleman is undertaking with Wakefield Council in shaping a local bid for his constituency, to be submitted in July, and I wish him luck. I am sure that he and colleagues across the House will make the most of this opportunity to represent their constituencies.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the opportunities presented through the two town deals awarded to Wakefield, providing combined Government investment of over £50 million. I recognise that these are not directedly targeted on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but the benefits will flow—they do not stop at local government boundaries or town boundaries. I hope that these investments, particularly in Wakefield’s urban centre, will lead to a stronger and more resilient local economy across the wider area.

Given that the hon. Member for Hemsworth and I are on different sides of the House, we will disagree on many things, but I want him to know that this is an agenda that we in the Government care very much about. We will reflect on the points he has raised and continue to pursue this agenda. We will engage with our West Yorkshire partners to inform our decision making, because we believe that all parts of the UK should have the means to shape their future positively.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022.

The order was laid before the House on 25 May 2022. If approved, it will enable best-value authorities and parish councils in England to, if they so wish, terminate proposed or subsisting public supply or works contracts where either the country or territory of origin of supplies to the contractor is the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus, or the location of the business activities or interests of a contractor is the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.

The illegal invasion of Russian forces into Ukraine earlier this year shocked the world and has been met with unprecedented global condemnation. I am sure hon. Members agree that Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked, illegal war is a reprehensible premeditated attack on Ukraine and on the principles of self-determination and the rule of law. Soon after the invasion, many local authorities publicly condemned Russia’s actions, and some noted their intention to break contracts with Russian-controlled companies. They were clear that local taxpayers’ hard-earned money must not be used to fund Vladimir Putin’s war machine. I take this opportunity to commend the strength of feeling that those local authorities demonstrated.

However, local authorities are subject to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibits them from taking non-commercial considerations into account when making commercial decisions. Non-commercial considerations as set out in the Act include

“the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors”.

The Cabinet Office’s policy procurement note PPN 01/2022, issued on 28 March, set out the limitations on local government in this area. That PPN, which is advisory in nature, asked Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies and Executive agencies to review their contract portfolios to identify Russian and Belarusian prime contractors and consider the termination of those contracts. The PPN also noted that Government officials were actively considering a solution for local government to enable councils to follow the Cabinet Office’s advice for central Government.

The Secretary of State wrote to all local authority leaders on 11 March preparing them to consider their exposure to Russian and Belarusian-owned companies, and council leaders have shown themselves to be not only receptive to action, but actively calling for it. A number have written to the Secretary of State requesting that the Government accommodate a flexible approach for councils that wish to terminate contracts with Russian state-owned companies. They are clear, as are we, that they do not wish public money to go towards the income of the Russian state during the present military crisis.

Hon. Members may recall a debate in the other place on 24 March regarding Gazprom UK. Members there were keen to know the Government’s plans to support local authorities and NHS trusts that wished to terminate relevant contracts, and stressed their desire to see legislation brought forward to amend public procurement rules to allow such termination, thus aligning local authorities with the rest of the public sector. As such, I am pleased that today we are considering this order, made under section 19 of the Local Government Act 1999, which will enable us to disapply the provision in section 17 of the 1988 Act.

It is important to note the intention of the order: the Government are not creating a new burden on local authorities, nor are we mandating termination of relevant contracts. Rather, we are responding to the sector’s requests and creating the opportunity for local authorities to terminate Russian or Belarusian contracts should they wish to do so. This is a permissive power; the decision to terminate relevant contracts remains solely at the discretion of the authorities in question.

The order will allow local authorities the flexibility to terminate both proposed and subsisting contracts, should they so wish. It will therefore allow them to take comparable action to central Government, as set out in PPN 01/2022, by declining to consider new procurement bids from entities that are constituted or organised under the law of Russia or Belarus, therefore ensuring they are not funding Vladimir Putin’s unwarranted aggression. In line with the PPN, and as the Secretary of State has advised local authority leaders, the Government are of the view that decisions to terminate such contracts by those authorities should be made on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and only where an alternative supplier can be sourced in line with value-for-money and affordability concerns and with minimal disruption to public services. The policy will not enable those bodies to instigate their own unofficial, municipal foreign or defence policies, but will not prevent them from undertaking their own divestment measures where those align with official Government sanctions, as in this case.

In his recent letter to council leaders, the Secretary of State acknowledged that taking the type of action this instrument will enable may have an impact on local authorities. That is why all decisions on terminating contracts must be taken locally. In addition, it is why I, as Local Government Minister restate the commitment that the Secretary of State made in his letter: the Government stand by to engage with any local authority that has concerns about its financial position or service delivery or that may be facing pressures it cannot take steps to manage locally.

Today’s order further demonstrates that our support for Ukraine at all levels of government remains undiminished. The UK and our allies have shown remarkable strength and unity in response to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and we will not be party to funding his war machine. I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the proposed order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and Opposition Members for supporting the regulations. We have been united across the House in our support of Ukraine through military and humanitarian means and in leading international efforts to support Ukraine’s objectives and levy financial and investment sanctions. Today’s order, which enables local authorities to cease their contracts with businesses linked to Vladimir Putin’s regime, further demonstrates that the Government will use all levers at our disposal and will not tolerate the abhorrent attack on Ukraine. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Elections Bill

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments (a) to (i) to the words restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Lords amendment 86, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 21, 24 to 85 and 87 to 126.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Bill has returned to the Commons after wide-ranging and often intense debate in the other place. I am grateful to my colleagues there, Lord True, Baroness Scott and Earl Howe, for their efforts in ensuring that the Bill was able to benefit from that scrutiny. The Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments to protect our democracy as well as a range of recommendations from consultations, parliamentarians, Select Committees, international observers and electoral stakeholders.

I will come to the more positive highlights of the Bill’s passage shortly, but I must, with regret, begin with the areas where the Government cannot agree with the changes made. We disagree with Lords amendment 86, tabled by Lord Willetts, Lord Woolley, Baroness Lister of Burtersett and the Lord Bishop of Coventry, which suggests a long list of new documents that could be used as a form of identification at polling stations, including non-photographic documents such as a bank statement, a council tax letter, a P45 or P60 form. The Government have been clear that the most straightforward and secure way of confirming someone’s identity is photographic identification. The Electoral Commission found this to be the best approach to pursue in the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share the concern raised by Mencap that the introduction of voter ID could result in another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The answer is no, we do not share that concern. We have conducted extensive pilots and we recognise that many people are concerned about the Bill, which is why we carried out extensive engagement explaining why there need not be any concerns about additional barriers on voter ID.

We also have the experience of Northern Ireland, where photographic identification has been required since 2003, following its introduction by the last Labour Government after the non-photographic model that had been in place since 1985 was deemed insufficient to stamp out fraud. A free voter card will be available for voters without suitable photographic identification and we are working closely with the Electoral Commission, which will deliver a clear and comprehensive communication campaign on the new requirements. While the list of acceptable identifications in the Bill is wide-ranging, I wish to reassure this House that, should further forms of photo identification become available and be sufficiently secure, the powers in the Bill are such that additional identification can be added or removed as necessary without the need for further primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment.

I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23, which seek to remove clauses 14 and 15 from the Bill. The purpose of clause 14 is to make provision for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement setting out guidance to which the Electoral Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions. Some parliamentarians have claimed that this duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement will weaken the commission’s operational independence, which is not correct. This duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out those other duties. Clause 15 simply expands the role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and empowers it to examine the commission’s performance of its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement.

In the other place, technical amendments to these clauses were made in Committee before the clauses were removed on Report. If this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22, the series of amendments we have proposed to the words so restored to the Bill will reinstate those technical amendments to clause 14. Amendments (c) and (f) to (h) reflect the parliamentary consequences of recent machinery of government changes. The other technical changes to the words so restored to the Bill, amendments (a) and (b), will ensure that the strategy and policy statement must not relate to the devolved functions of the Electoral Commission. Consequently, amendments (d), (e) and (i) provide that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are no longer statutory consultees on the strategy and policy statement. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23 and to agree to amendments (a) to (i) and to the words so restored to the Bill.

Given the strength of feeling, although the Government strongly reject the characterisation that clause 14 will weaken the commission’s operational independence, we have heard the concerns and tabled amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. Amendment (a) will require the Secretary of State, when preparing a statement, to have regard to the duty placed on the commission by section 145(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules set out in that Act. Further, the amendment will prohibit the statement from including reference to specific investigatory or enforcement activity. That provides further reassurance on the commission’s operational independence.

On the parliamentary approval procedure in relation to the statement, the Government’s view is that the affirmative resolution procedure will provide both Houses of Parliament with appropriate opportunities to debate and scrutinise the statement in full before determining whether to approve or reject it. However, we have listened to the concerns raised and, to provide further reassurance, the Government tabled amendments (c) to (h), (j) and (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. These amendments provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of a statement that has been subject to statutory consultation under new section 4C of the 2000 Act by providing both Houses with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval. The amendments also make consequential changes to clause 14.

Amendments (b) and (i) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23 will require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the statutory consultation on the statement, and to respond to requests from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for the statement to be revised.

Taken together, these provisions, in addition to those already built into clause 14 relating to parliamentary approval and consultation, should provide significant reassurance to Members of both Houses on the concerns about the strategy and policy statement. In particular, the amendments put beyond doubt the question of whether the statement could be used to unduly influence individual enforcement activity or to give guidance without the Secretary of State considering the commission’s monitoring and compliance duties.

On clause 25, the Government have listened to the concerns raised by parliamentarians and by representatives of civil society organisations in recent meetings. Lords amendment 44 means that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can be made only where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which will provide a necessary safeguard against any future Government who potentially seek to misuse the clause.

The Government have also carefully considered the concerns relating to clause 27. These measures were not designed to disproportionately affect any particular group. Given the strength of feeling on this issue, the Government tabled Lords amendment 50 to remove the clause from the Bill. I ask the House to support this amendment.

It is standard practice for the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we took on board the desire to ensure in the legislation that that scrutiny took place. Lords amendment 80 supports the joint aim on both sides of the House that the operation of these measures is assessed following the implementation of the Bill, while ensuring sufficient time has passed and processes are embedded enough for the scrutiny to be meaningful and effective. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendments 1 to 5 make changes to clause 7, narrowing its scope so that the provisions do not unintentionally prevent legitimate campaigning by candidates outside the time that a person completes their postal ballot or legitimate opinion polling activity. Lords amendments 112 to 116 make the same changes in relation to Northern Ireland.

Lords amendments 9 to 12, 45, 64 to 79, 81 to 85, 87, 105 to 110 and 118 to 124 are technical and clarifying amendments. As the House will be aware, the Bill represents an extensive and ambitious portfolio of work in a complex and detailed body of law. The amendments ensure the measures are fit for purpose and operate as intended.

Following extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in the preparation and drafting of the policy, the Scottish and Welsh Governments unfortunately declined to consent to applying certain measures to devolved polls. It was therefore necessary for the Government to table Lords amendments 6 to 8, 13, 14, 24 to 28, 30 to 33, 37, 38, 40 to 43, 46 to 48, 51 to 63, 88 to 102, 117, 125 and 126 to ensure the measures apply to reserved matters only. I therefore ask the House to agree to these necessary amendments.

Lords amendments 15 to 19 strengthen the provisions in clause 9 that seek to expand the provision for voters with disabilities from a narrow and restrictive provision specific to blind and partially sighted voters to one that supports the needs of a wider range of voters with disabilities, increasing the overall accessibility of our elections. For too long, we have had a requirement in law to provide a single device, which has hindered innovation in this area. We are grateful for the work of Lord Holmes, who worked with both the Government and external organisations to strengthen these measures in the Bill by specifically highlighting the importance of supporting electors’ ability to vote independently and secretly, all while maintaining our policy aim of moving away from a limited prescriptive approach to more flexibility and innovation. These amendments will also enable the support for disabled voters to be monitored effectively through Electoral Commission reporting, and will require in law that there is guidance to promote consistency, for which returning officers must have regard. That guidance will be developed in consultation with organisations representing people with disabilities. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.

The Government also support Lords amendments 20, 21, 103, 104 and 111 tabled by Lord Hayward. These amendments make sensible changes to the rules for candidates standing in elections, which were first raised in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Lords amendment 21 will allow candidates the additional option of citing their local authority area on the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections, as they already can for local elections. That will make it easier for candidates to demonstrate locality while preserving protection for their personal safety. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for raising this topic and I hope he is pleased with that outcome.

Lords amendments 20, 103, 104 and 111 widen the scope of the current provisions concerning the use of commonly used names to allow candidates to include on their nomination paper any name they commonly use as a forename or surname, such as their middle name. This is already facilitated in practice by returning officers, but it is not provided for in existing electoral law, so it is right that the Bill is amended for consistency. I commend these amendments to the House.

Lords amendments 34, 35 and 36, tabled by Baroness Noakes, are technical amendments that bring this clause into line with more standard accounting practices, so I commend them to the House. Finally, Lords amendments 49, 29 and 39 were brought forward in the other House by Lord Hodgson. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are supporting them. They will introduce a duty on the Electoral Commission to produce a statutory code of conduct, providing much-needed certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules related to third-party campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The constituent was lobbying on the abolition of imprisonment for public protection, and I am visiting one of her sons in prison, so I felt the need to see her.

I want to make three very simple points. When we get to this stage in the parliamentary Session, people start to become a bit light-headed, so let us try to concentrate on three issues. I am a member of PACAC, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is here. Every time he makes a parliamentary intervention, he increases my respect for him. Electoral officers were looking for a Bill that was much more comprehensive and wrapped up a whole range of issues; they were looking to bring together existing practices in one piece of legislation, and to look at new challenges that they faced. Those challenges are not reflected in the Bill.

On the amendments, one of the main concerns about the operation of the Electoral Commission that the Government seem to identify is that it needs more direction by way of a Government ministerial statement. That was not part of any of the evidence that we heard from electoral administrators. This goes to the heart of the independence of the electoral administration of this country. That is why people are fearful. I have ranted on this before, and do not want to go into the arguments again about our being on a slippery slope to something that could be quite dangerous. However, if there is to be a statement from the Secretary of State, which I think is completely wrong, there needs to be at least some acknowledgement by the Government that there should be more of a role for Parliament in drafting it.

I want to ask the Minister a question, and I will give way if she can respond. Did I hear correctly that the statement will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure, but not the super-affirmative procedure? Can she clarify that by way of intervention?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, I am happy to confirm it is the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Many people cannot follow it, and I suspect that I am one of them.

The denial letter is sent with the DRN on it. Again, the elderly and ill people ask, “What does that DRN mean?” I say positively and constructively to the Minister that I believe she will replicate what we have done in Northern Ireland and probably do it better, having learnt from some of the mistakes made back home. How do I explain to an 87-year-old woman—I will not mention her name—that the electoral office needs information that she did not know that she had and that, because she has been denied her vote at this time, I will have to borrow a wheelchair to take her down to vote? We will do that on the day, and she has not left her home in two years. I say that because the digital process was lost on that lady, and it is lost on many others.

The digital registration number is essential according to the legislation, yet it means nothing in practice. She had used her national insurance number for the last 65 years of her life, yet all of a sudden that is not what the electoral office wants. She understands that, but she does not understand what the DRN is. Again, that is about looking at how we can make the system better.

I believe we are overcomplicating the system, and it is the ordinary person who is the loser. Those sitting in a room fraudulently filling out postal vote forms know all about DRN—they understand it, but this lady does not. She will make herself ill getting to the polling station because she will not miss her vote. Never mind that she has had a postal vote for that address for many elections, there is no room in the legislation for common sense.

My fear is that the Lords amendments do not go far enough and complicate matters, which is why I look to the Minister and the Government for suggestions on how to take the issue forward. I welcome Lords amendments 15 to 19, which include explicit reference to voting in secret and “independently”, and would place new statutory duties on the Electoral Commission to draw up new guidance to support an independent and secret vote at the polling station from 2023, consult relevant organisations in the production of that guidance, and hold returning officers to account for following that guidance. However, as the Royal National Institute of Blind People says, the key question will, of course, be whether blind and partially sighted voters have better experiences at polling stations in 2023 and beyond. On that, it is clearly too soon to say.

I know the Minister is keen. I know the comments she has made in the past on ensuring those who are visually impaired have the right to have the same opportunity to vote and a system they understand. I know the Minister wants to make sure that happens, but perhaps she could confirm that that will be the case.

I will conclude with this comment. There is an overarching theme that this legislation may not be hitting. That is to encourage people to vote and not set up hurdle after hurdle for those who are minded to vote. If people want to cast their vote and use their franchise, and if we want to ensure they have that opportunity in whatever way they can—it is right that they should—then I believe this House must ensure that people have that vote. I look forward very much to what the Minister will say. I cast my mind back to our experiences in Northern Ireland and what we have done. Do not feel threatened in any way by photo ID. It works for us; it can work for you.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have listened to the debate with interest. As shown by the amendments tabled today in relation to the Electoral Commission, the Government have been receptive to the representations made by parliamentarians across both Houses and have sought to provide reassurance where possible.

Before I conclude, I thought I might pick up on a number of points raised by Members. The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked about the purpose of candidates’ addresses. It is right that candidates who live just outside the constituency they are standing for, but who do not wish to disclose their home addresses, are not at a disadvantage because their local connection may not be recognised. Using local authorities is a balanced approach to that, while also protecting their safety. On Report, this was a cross-party amendment, so I know that Opposition Members agree. The option is already available to candidates at local and mayoral elections across local authorities, and we think it is appropriate to extend that option to candidates at parliamentary elections.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. New burdens funding will be provided to cover additional costs as a result of the changes, so local authorities will not be required to find it from their existing budgets.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is no longer in her place, but she made an intervention on the hon. Gentleman about the suppression of ethnic minority voters. She is quite wrong. Her assertion that black voters are less likely to have ID is based on a stereotype that arose in the US and was true during the Jim Crow era. We do not have Jim Crow in this country. We never did. It is an offensive stereotype. It is not just offensive but wrong to say that ethnic minorities do not have photo ID. All other things being equal, ethnic minority voters in this country are actually more likely to have photographic ID. Speaking for first-generation immigrants like myself—[Interruption.] I am not addressing the hon. Gentleman; I said the hon. Member for Edinburgh West. We should agree across the House that ethnic minorities should not be used as political footballs to make those sorts of silly points when there is no evidence. I am glad that he agrees with me. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the point about the strategy and policy statement, and he might be pleased with my clarification—I assumed that he was asking about everything in our new provisions on the strategy and policy statement. It will be subject to the approval of the UK Parliament and allow it a greater role in scrutinising the Electoral Commission. In applicable circumstances, the statement will be subject to statutory consultation to allow the views of key stakeholders to be considered before the draft statement is submitted for UK parliamentary approval. I think he will be pleased to hear that we tabled amendments (c), (h), (j) and (k) in lieu, which provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny—it is super-affirmative, as he mentioned—of a statement that has been subject to a statutory consultation by providing both Houses, with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval.

However, not all changes to a statement will warrant a full statutory consultation, which is why, in some circumstances—if it is just a minor change—the Secretary of State will be able to disapply the statutory consultation requirement. The Government’s view is that it would be overly burdensome to apply enhanced parliamentary scrutiny to changes that did not warrant a statutory consultation.

The Scottish National party Members, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), continued the theatrical representations that they have made during all stages of the Bill, repeatedly creating straw men that they could knock down and using so much circular reasoning that my head was spinning. We have covered those points many times, so I will not repeat them again, but I enjoy listening to them in these debates. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who was excellent in making a lot of rebuttals to the points that they and other members of the Bill Committee made.

I thank the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who very eloquently and strongly explained that voter turnout in Northern Ireland was not impacted by the introduction of photographic ID. That is yet another straw man. It is not true, and they said it far better than I ever could. The hon. Member for Strangford sought reassurances about a number of measures. I do not have the correct information to do so now, but I will ensure that my officials provide him with a comprehensive response.

I hope, in returning the Bill to their lordships, that hon. Members can send a clear message on the vital importance of ensuring that our elections remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure the integrity of our elections and it will protect the right of all citizens to participate in our elections while feeling confident that the vote is theirs and theirs alone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

Cotswold District Council: Solar Farms

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing a debate on this important topic. Borrowing rules for local authorities may not be the sort of thing that generate many column inches in the newspapers, but they really matter to the day-to-day workings of local government. In many ways, these rules are the guard rails that help to govern decisions around the investment of public funds, which is why it is vital that hon. Members have as much clarity and transparency as possible on what councils can and cannot do, as well as having the opportunity to challenge and raise instances of what they perceive to be misallocation of funds.

My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of his constituents and I applaud him for bringing the issue to the House today for discussion. First, he asked whether the borrowing in question was within the lending rules of the Public Works Loan Board. Under Public Works Loan Board guidance, a project for service delivery includes education, highways and transport, social care, public health, culture, environmental and regulatory services; police, fire and rescue; and central services. I can confirm that projects related to climate change are included in that.

I make it clear that the Government understand that although borrowing is necessary to deliver local priorities, it does carry risk, so it is important that it is done sensibly to keep local authorities’ finances sustainable. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that in recent years, a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive and unnecessary risks with taxpayers’ money. Those risks have backfired. That has been all too visible in the high-profile cases of councils that have become too indebted or have made substantial investments in projects that have ultimately proved too risky or too large.

On my hon Friend’s points about the scale of the borrowing that Cotswold District Council intends to do in comparison with its annual income, it goes without saying that disproportionate levels of debt expose councils to financial risk. It is not just the size of the debt that can create issues; some authorities invest in novel activities outside their areas of experience or expertise, which can lead to financial loss when the investment is mismanaged. My hon. Friend will remember what happened with Robin Hood Energy, Bristol Energy and Together Energy. While councils are sometimes very well meaning in trying to tackle important issues such as achieving net zero, we cannot forget that the energy market can be volatile, and councils need to be sure that they are getting the right advice when proceeding with such investments.

That is not to say that local authorities should not undertake borrowing. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise that commercial investments can be necessary and appropriate when made sensibly. Sensible investment can play an important role in helping us to power forward on issues that are central to the Government’s agenda, be they levelling up, net zero or building the homes that the country needs.

On my hon Friend’s point that the Government should stop Cotswold District Council borrowing this money, as he will be aware, councils have responsibility for setting out capital strategies for their area, and they will be held accountable by their communities. Local leaders should understand local issues and prioritise accordingly; it is the Government’s expectation that they should be able to make decisions that reflect the needs of their communities.

In making these decisions, every local authority has a duty to comply with the prudential framework by making sure that its plans are prudent, affordable and sustainable. As my hon. Friend highlighted, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for preventable mistakes. The Government will, of course, step in where there is clear evidence that local authorities are not complying with their legal duties or acting in the best interests of their taxpayers.

Our focus, as my hon. Friend might expect, is on making sure that we have a system that is genuinely fit for purpose.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidance to the Public Works Loan Board has recently been changed so that no investment that is made purely to increase return is allowed? Will she also confirm that any application to the PWLB will have to be accompanied by a statement including a minimum loan guarantee repayment, so that it is crystal clear to everybody in the Cotswold district how these loans will be repaid?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on the first point. The council cannot invest purely for profit, but because its investment has a net zero element, it would qualify under the guidance. However, it remains to be seen exactly how the proposal will manifest itself. I cannot confirm the second point at the Dispatch Box, but I will get officials to write to him formally with a comprehensive answer. He is absolutely right to raise the point that there is guidance out there that should ensure that councils invest prudently.

In July 2021, we set out what might be called a multi-pronged approach to supporting our role as steward of local investments by improving local decision making and capability, and by developing proportionate tools for intervention, when that might be needed. We continue to work with the sector to implement our proposals and keep the system under continuous review.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s point that the council lacks the experience to successfully manage the programme. To be clear, when local authorities make decisions to borrow to invest in areas such as solar farms, it is important that they have the relevant expertise in the market, and that they have the governance in place to challenge the parties and people running the projects if they are being mismanaged or appear to be falling behind schedule. The council will need to satisfy itself, taxpayers and the electorate that it has the necessary expertise to manage complex projects without exposing itself to excessive risk.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she has been generous. Considering that there is more than adequate private finance to fund these solar farms, is it right that a local authority should invest in such a risky venture?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that the Government should not be competing too much with the private sector, but it is not for me to determine what a council should or should not do. Councils are elected and have mandates, but they must be responsible in spending taxpayers’ money. We do not want, as a corollary of that, the Government intervening too much in councils’ decisions. We have empowered councils to do the right thing and, as I said, we expect them to satisfy themselves and taxpayers that they have the necessary expertise to manage complex projects and not expose themselves to excessive risk. We would expect any council to comply with good practice guidance from not just the PWLB but organisations such as the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy, and to take on board lessons learned from other authorities. We want to support local authorities in investing responsibly. In March—my hon. Friend may not be aware of this—we commissioned a review of the governance and capability of local authority investment and borrowing, and that review will report later this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House, and for raising this case. It is important that local authorities remain financially sustainable, and the Government take that seriously. If he would like to raise any further points, I will be happy to write to him with further details. Members from across the House care about local accountability and protecting taxpayers’ interests. I am sure that Members will agree that that needs to be achieved in the right way, and that local authorities’ spending needs to be sustainable and not beyond their means.

Question put and agreed to.

Supporting Families Annual Report

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

As required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, section 3(1), today I have published the 2021-22 annual report of the Supporting Families programme. The report sets out how the programme has been helping our most disadvantaged families who face multiple and complex problems.

Supporting Families (previously the Troubled Families programme) helps level up key services to give families the practical support they need to stop domestic abuse and combat problems such as unemployment, persistent school absence and poor mental and physical health, with funding allocated based on deprivation and population figures. It has been at the heart of our ambition to strengthen families and improve their futures for 10 years. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced £200 million of additional investment to expand the programme. This is around a 40% real-terms uplift in funding by 2024-25, taking total planned investment across the next three years to £695 million.

Through its 10 years of delivery, the programme has directly helped hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families make positive changes to their lives, with many thousands more benefiting from access to early, co-ordinated whole family support. Importantly, the programme has shown what is possible when we step in early to help families and prevent problems from escalating. The programme’s evaluation showed it reduced the proportion of children on the programme going into care by a third, the proportion of adults going to prison by a quarter and the proportion of young people going to prison by 38%.

Reducing the pressure on high-cost statutory services such as children’s social care is a key focus for the expanded programme. Between 2022-23 and 2024-25 my Department will work closely with the Department for Education, local authorities, and their partners to deliver support to up to 300,000 more families.

“Levelling up for families: annual report of the Supporting Families programme 2021-2022” marks the 10th year of Supporting Families delivery and includes an update on the programme’s performance and a summary of the latest research findings and policy developments for the programme.

Between April 2021 and January 2022, the programme has funded local authorities to achieve successful outcomes with 55,421 families. This includes 1,838 adults who were helped into sustained employment, and builds on 414,955 successful family outcomes achieved by the Troubled Families programme between April 2015 and March 2021. These families faced multiple and complex problems including a combination of crime, truancy, neglect, anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse, poor mental health, worklessness and financial exclusion. Every successful family outcome represents a family’s life changed for the better—a considerable achievement for the families and the local services supporting them.

The report sets out how we are improving the programme in this next phase. We have updated the programme’s funding formula to reflect current need by redistributing funding to more deprived areas in line with our ambition to level up across the country. We are setting refreshed expectations on the outcomes to be achieved with families through a new outcomes framework and setting expectations for an effective early help system through an updated early help system guide. Local authorities use the outcomes framework to assess whether families are eligible for the programme’s funding, measure if the family’s situation is improving, and define what a good outcome looks like for each problem. The refresh will make sure that the programme continues to reflect the needs of families. The early help system guide outlines a national vision and descriptors for an effective and mature “early help system” to enable local authorities and their partners to deliver seamless, responsive, and co-ordinated preventive support to families. Updating the guide will ensure that local authorities delivering the programme continue to improve their early help offer and have clarity on what a high-standard system looks like.

The annual report summarises the latest research findings relating to the programme. Alongside the annual report, I have also published a new research report by the independent research organisation Kantar, which looks at effective practice and service delivery in local areas. This sets out what a sample of local areas report as the most effective approaches for delivering positive change in families’ lives. I will deposit copies of both reports in the House of Commons Library.

I look forward to working alongside local authorities, their partners and other stakeholders as the programme celebrates its 10th anniversary, and seeing first-hand the continued impact it has on the lives of our most vulnerable families.

[HCWS753]

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

On 18 January 2022,1 announced to the House that the Secretary of State was minded to intervene at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“the authority”) and to appoint Commissioners to take over functions associated with the governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making, and of those relating to the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers.

At the same time, I sought views on how best to improve political stability in the authority’s leadership and to move towards a four-yearly election cycle.

These proposals followed the publication of a “Value for Money Governance” review by the authority’s external auditor, Grant Thornton, issued to the authority on 3 December 2021. The review makes 45 wide-ranging recommendations, three of which are statutory recommendations, and in my view provides considerable evidence that the authority has failed to comply with its best value duty over a number of years. This is a requirement set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, with regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The Governance review paints a deeply troubling picture of mismanagement and of ineffective scrutiny and accountability arrangements at the authority. While the review recognises the recent progress made under the Interim Chief Executive, Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL, it also notes how, historically, senior officers and members have been unable to make the changes required to move away from the past.

While the Secretary of State is encouraged by the “green shoots” of progress described in the report, his view is that the risk of progress stalling or slowing is significant. He believes the proposed intervention is necessary and expedient to secure compliance with the best value duty.

As part of my announcement in January, I invited the authority to make representations about my proposals to formally intervene on or before 11 February 2022.

Representations were received from 15 parties: the authority, its Conservative Councillor Group, an independent Councillor, three MPs, eight residents and one residents’ group. With one exception, all the representations supported the intervention and the proposal to appoint Commissioners.

The authority welcomed the support of the Department with its improvement, and stated that it looked forward to working with Commissioners and developing a clear improvement plan. In relation to elections, the authority confirmed that it is in the process of developing an action plan which includes consultation and engagement activity.

The Conservative Group and the independent Councillor pledged to work with the Commissioners. Residents were universally supportive of the intervention and keen to see real improvement in the authority’s services.

While two MPs supported intervention, one was opposed, citing the need for the progress made by the Council’s new senior leaders not to be undermined by Commissioners.

Best value intervention in Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Following consideration of these representations, the Secretary of State has decided to proceed with the proposals announced on 18 January.

Appointing Commissioners for Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council the Secretary of State has decided to appoint two Commissioners with a proven record of leadership, transformation and strong governance, and the specific expertise that will be relevant to their functions.

The Governance review recognises that it is the interim Chief Executive Officer, Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL, that has been driving change within the authority since his arrival in August 2021. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State has decided to appoint Mr Bromley-Derry as Managing Director Commissioner, a role which will enable him to continue the work that he has already begun, and to provide the authority with the consistent leadership capacity that it needs to continue its recovery. I would also like to thank Mr Bromley-Derry’s employers, McLaren Construction Group, for enabling his appointment.

Kim Bromley Derry CBE DL (Managing Director Commissioner)—Kim has more than 35 years of public sector experience, including eight years as Chief Executive of the London Borough of Newham. He was also Director of Children’s Services at both the London Borough of Newham and South Tyneside Council and a Children’s Services Director at Leicester City Council. Kim was appointed Interim Chief Executive of Sandwell Council in August 2021 after being temporarily released from his role as Group Director for strategic partnerships at McLaren Construction Group. Kim has also been President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and chaired the Government’s Libraries Taskforce.

Jim Taylor (Assistant Commissioner)—Jim served for six years as Chief Executive of Salford City Council prior to his retirement in 2021. He also fulfilled the role of Interim Chief Executive of Trafford Borough Council simultaneously from July 2018 to February 2019. Prior to this Jim was the Chief Executive of Rochdale Council having also served as Director for Children’s Services at Tameside MBC. In June 2021 Jim was appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake an external assurance review of governance at Slough Borough Council.

The Commissioners have been appointed for two years from 22 March 2022 to 22 March 2024, or such earlier or later time as we determine. We are clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary.

The Commissioners will be asked to provide their first report within the next three months. Further reports will be provided every six months, or as agreed with the Commissioners.

I want to be clear that most decisions will continue to be made by the authority; the intention being that Commissioners will only use their powers as a last resort if they are dissatisfied with the authority’s improvement processes.

Commissioners will work collaboratively with Emma Taylor, Chief Executive of Sandwell Children’s Trust and Mark Gurrey, the Department for Education’s children’s services adviser and Chair of the Council’s improvement board for children’ services. This will ensure that the improvements overseen to date through the Department for Education’s statutory intervention continue to be made.

I would also like to thank the LGA for the continued support it has provided to the authority, most recently through a Corporate Peer Challenge.

As with other interventions led by my Department, the authority will be directed to meet the costs of the Commissioners. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on www.gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.

Conclusion

The Government will continue to work closely with the political, business, and cultural leadership of Sandwell, and is committed to making sure the residents of Sandwell have what they need from their local council, including confidence in its governance and service delivery.

I have published the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/proposed-intervention-at-sandwell-metropolitan-borough-council.

[HCWS706]