Draft Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This order was laid before the House on 24 January 2022. If approved and made, it will implement a proposal submitted by Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council for two new unitary councils for the people of Cumbria, on an east-west geography, covering the entirety of the county of Cumbria. Those councils will be known as Cumberland Council and Westmorland and Furness Council.

Implementing this proposal and establishing these unitary authorities will enable stronger leadership and engagement, both at a strategic level and with communities at the most local level. It will pave the way, as envisaged in the levelling-up White Paper, for a significant devolution deal involving a directly elected Mayor for Cumbria, if that is an option that local leaders wish to pursue.

This locally led process for reform began on 9 October 2020, when the then Secretary of State invited the principal councils in Cumbria to put forward, if they wished, proposals for replacing the two-tier system of local government with a single-tier system. That invitation set out the criteria for unitarisation. Any unitary authority established would, first, have to be likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area covered by the proposal, give greater value for money, generate savings and provide stronger strategic and local leadership.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend set out the estimated savings that will result from moving from two-tier to one-tier government? I ask because it will be hugely significant to those of us in Lancashire who hope to move from two-tier to one-tier local government to hear of the savings that could be made in Cumbria; it will enable us to drive forward the debate in Lancashire.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, I will outline those savings. They are just a little further on in my speech.

Any change would have to ensure more sustainable structures. Secondly, any authorities established would have to command a good deal of local support, in the round, across the whole area of the proposal. Thirdly, the area of each unitary authority would have to be a credible geography consisting of one or more existing local government areas. It should have an aggregate population of between 300,000 and 600,000, or of some other figure that could be considered substantial given the circumstances of the authority, including local identity and geography.

Four locally-led proposals for local government reorganisation in Cumbria were received in December 2020—one for a single unitary council, and three for two unitary councils. Before deciding how to proceed, the Government consulted widely. They received around 3,200 responses to their statutory consultation on the Cumbria proposals, which was launched on 22 February 2021 and ended on 19 April 2021. Of these responses, some 2,400, or 73%, were from residents living in the area affected. There was a good deal of local support for local government reorganisation across the categories of respondents—from residents, local authorities, public sector providers, parish councils and the business sector. However, across these categories, there was a spread of responses in favour of each proposal; each proposal had some support.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for outlining how many responses were received—it was 3,000-plus, of which 2,362 were from residents who were basically, it would appear, in favour. Can she tell us how many residents live in these areas altogether? I ask because Cheshire changed to having two unitary councils some years ago. As an MP for a Cheshire constituency, I know that there was a sense among many residents that they had not really been carried along, and that the two unitary councils had been imposed on them. I am trying to point out that there are a lot more residents than there were respondents. It is really important that there is liaison or communication with residents, to ensure that they understand the benefits of the change; otherwise, there can be a sense that they have not been properly engaged, or an ongoing resentment that can last some years.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There are 499,000 residents in the county of Cumbria, so she is right that a comparatively small number of people have responded to the consultation, but across Government we know that those who respond to consultations tend to be those who are most interested in the subject, and they often give a representative view. However, she is right that local government leaders across the county will need to ensure that they engage with residents as this unitarisation is carried out.

The East West proposal had the support of local businesses, especially in relation to better supporting the diverse nature of local economies, particularly the advanced manufacturing base and supply chain around Sellafield. There was some resident support for the East West proposal, with those in favour considering that the new authorities would be more accessible local organisations that were better able to respond to local needs. Among local organisations, there was a view that the geography of the East West proposal would ensure equal levels of population density across the two proposed new council areas, and that this would contribute to a balanced service delivery, including addressing deprivation, and credible geography.

Based on the consultation responses, the Secretary of State considered that, if implemented, the East West proposal would command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round overall across the whole area of the proposal, and that that criterion had been met. In considering the locally-led unitary proposals against our long-standing assessment criteria, he concluded that the North South proposal did not meet the credible geography criterion; that the proposal for The Bay did not meet the improving local government and service delivery, and credible geography, criteria; and that although the county council’s proposal for a single unitary met the three criteria, the East West proposal was more appropriate on grounds of geography.

The Secretary of State announced his decisions on the proposals on 21 July 2021. He made a balanced judgment, assessing all the proposals against the three criteria to which I have referred and which were set out in the invitation on 9 October 2020. He also had regard to all representations received, including responses to the consultation and all other relevant information available to him. He concluded that the East West unitary proposal for Cumbria met all three criteria. The Government believe that there is a powerful case for implementing this locally-led proposal for change.

The East West unitary will improve local government for half a million people in Cumbria by enhancing social care and safeguarding services through closer connection with related services such as housing, leisure and benefits. It will improve local government by offering opportunities for improved strategic decision making in areas such as housing, planning and transport. It will also provide improvements to local partnership working with other public sector bodies by aligning with arrangements in existing public sector partnerships, and allowing existing relationships and partnership working to be maintained without disruption.

Let me turn to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. The estimated savings set out in the unitary proposal of Allerdale and Copeland councils are between £19 million and £31.6 million per annum. I do not know whether he finds those figures acceptable.

[Jake Berry]

Does the Minister accept that £19 million to £31 million is a bit of a spread? Can she tell us whether the Department has done an impact assessment or worked with those authorities to try to have a better understanding of where they will be on that spectrum— £19 million is welcome; £31 million would be hugely welcome—and if the Department has not done that work, will she tell us what steps it will take to ensure that those savings are felt by taxpayers in the two unitary authorities in Cumbria?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend raises a good question. I do not know whether the Department carried out an impact assessment, as it was before my time as Minister, but I do know that it has taken into account multiple criteria when it comes to what will be gained by having these unitaries, including, as I said, improvements in social care and safeguarding, strategic decision making, local partnerships and so on. My right hon. Friend is right that £19 million to £31 million is quite a spread, but the local government proposers themselves should be able to assist in explaining precisely how they can ensure that taxpayers’ money is saved and that the benefits are realised.

[Jake Berry]

Would the Minister feel it appropriate to target the new local authorities on those savings? I have been involved in several devolution deals myself, so I can tell her that they all look very good on paper, but in truth what matters to the people are the savings and service improvements that are delivered on the ground. It is absolutely the role of the Department and the Minister’s officials to ensure that those are not just talked about and then forgotten—I know she will ensure that does not happen—but are actually delivered on the ground?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point and I will make sure that officials—I am sure they are listening—have taken note of that and will be able to explain to me how we can provide that support and realise those savings. I thank him for raising that point.

Finally, this unitarisation will deliver proposals aimed at maintaining and strengthening local community identity, and it will integrate local services while reflecting the changes of rurality in the areas of both new unitary councils. If Parliament approves the order there will be, from 1 April 2023, two unitary councils for Cumbria delivering the improvements that I have just outlined. We have prepared this order in discussion with all the councils concerned, and I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the process for the work that they have undertaken together, constructively and collaboratively. Our discussions with the councils have included transitional and electoral arrangements, which are key to how the councils will drive forward implementation. Where there has been agreement between all the councils, we have adopted their preferred approach, and where there were different views as to the detailed way forward, the Secretary of State has considered all the differing views and reached a decision accordingly.

I turn to the detail of the order and highlight its key provision, which sets out that on 1 April 2023, the districts of Allerdale, Barrow-in-Furness, Carlisle, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland, and the county council of Cumbria, will be abolished. The councils of those districts and county will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, their functions will be transferred to the new unitary Cumberland council and Westmorland and Furness council. The order also provides for appropriate transitional arrangements, which include the following arrangements. In May 2022, there will be elections for the new unitary councils, which will assume their full powers from 1 April 2023. These elections will be on the basis of a 46-member authority in Cumberland with 46 single-member wards, and a 65-member authority in Westmorland and Furness with 33 wards of between one and three members. Subsequent elections to the unitary council will be in May 2027 and every four years thereafter. We expect that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will undertake a full electoral review before the May 2027 elections. Parish council elections will remain unchanged.

A duty will be placed on all existing councils to co-operate during the transitional period until 1 April 2023. To support councils in that transitional period, I intend—if the order is approved and made—to use my powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to issue a direction, which would replace the voluntary arrangements that the Cumbria councils have already adopted about entering into contracts and the disposal of land during this transitional period. That is in line with the approach adopted in most previous unitarisations, and it will ensure that the new unitary councils have appropriate oversight of the commitments that their predecessor councils may enter into during the transitional period and which the new unitary councils will take on from 1 April 2023. Before issuing any such direction, I will invite councils’ views on a draft.

Finally, with sincere apologies, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that has been issued to correct a minor error in part 2 of the schedule of the draft order, which lists the existing wards that will go to make up the new wards of Westmorland and Furness Council. This is to correct the name of an existing ward in the new High Furness ward, currently shown as “Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite (Part)”. It should be shown as simply “Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite”. This is an unintentional inclusion of the name of a polling district used for the purposes of administering elections, rather than of a ward, and its appearance in the schedule might be taken to imply that some part of Dunnerdale-with-Seathwaite ward is omitted. We are very sorry for this minor error in the original text of the draft order.

In conclusion, through this order we seek to replace the existing local government structures that were set up in 1974 in Cumbria with two new councils that will be able to deliver high-quality, sustainable local services for the people of Cumbria. These unitary councils will be able to provide stronger and more effective leadership at both the strategic and most local levels. This will open the way for a significant devolution deal as referred to in our levelling-up White Paper. I commend this order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle, for Workington and for Congleton, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his support for the order.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked me how we were using the criteria to make decisions and whether we were making the local support secondary. The answer is no, we are not. The criteria say that each proposal needs to command a good deal of local support, as assessed in the round overall. It is not about which one has majority support, because the consultations are not statutory consultations and are not referendums, so we need to take into account, with other measures, what local people feel about each one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made a really good point about the consultation on The Bay, which asked people in Cumbria, but not in Lancaster, about the proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle asked about the borderlands growth initiative. New councils will be the successors to the decisions that the existing councils are making, so the initiative should continue with some Cumbria local government input. There is no reason why it should disappear.

I thank members of the Committee and remind everyone that the Government are committed to supporting and empowering local leaders and communities, as our levelling-up White Paper makes clear. Specifically, our mission is that by 2030, every part of England that wants a devolution deal will have one; clearly, many Members are passionate about that. Those deals should have powers at, or approaching, the highest level of devolution, with a simplified long-term funding settlement. By providing for the new unitary councils, the order will pave the way for the devolution deal that I know Cumbria deserves, and it will open the way to the sustained delivery of high-quality local public services, greater value for money, ongoing savings and more resilient local government for the area. Those are the benefits that the order can bestow on the people and businesses of Cumbria, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums) Bill

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on securing a place in the ballot for this private Member’s Bill on introducing referendums into the process of local government boundary reviews. He, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) have both raised, very passionately, a number of serious issues around the service that they are receiving from Bradford Council. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his contribution.

The Government remain committed to their policy that local government reorganisation, whether it involves boundary or unitary changes, should be locally led. I commit to working with my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Keighley as requested on the various issues that they have raised.

The Bill makes provision for certain processes to be followed where boundary changes are being sought, particularly where the boundary change would result in an area being taken out of an existing local government area and the creation of a wholly new area with a wholly new council.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely understand why the Government would not wish to interfere in bringing forward a top-down reorganisation of local authorities; that would be inappropriate, and I understand why they would be reluctant to do that. Does the Minister accept though that the beauty of my hon. Friend’s Bill is that, in the Government’s stated position of changes being locally led, nothing indicates something more locally led than a local referendum, where all the people have a chance to vote to say where they want to be represented? Does she agree that this Bill fulfils that Government policy of locally led changes?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Absolutely; it does meet that locally led test, but that is not the only test that we would be applying.

The processes that Parliament has established for changing a local government boundary are centred on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, so that is another step that would be required. We all know that a boundary change can be effected only if it is recommended by that commission. The issue at the moment, which is why we cannot accept this Bill in the way that it has been drafted, is that it would cut across those processes.

The long title of the Bill is:

“A Bill to make provision to enable parliamentary constituency areas to form new unitary local authority areas if agreed by referendum; to make provision for such referendums; and for connected purposes.”

The Bill would be very sweeping indeed. We would be concerned about a number of aspects of this approach.

First, parliamentary constituencies may not be a sound basis for establishing the right level of service delivery—that must be a consideration. We also need to make sure that the boundaries can be established only where there is a safeguard against anything that might lose the confidence of the local democracy. That is definitely not the case here, but a referendum could be promoted by some politicians of a particular party and lead to the creation of councils primarily on a party political basis. As the Bill is drafted, there is no prevention mechanism to stop something like that from happening.

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate that time is running out, so may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley to discuss how we might bring forward a Bill that satisfies our requirements and those of the Government? That will be very helpful and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to do that.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend. He and I will be able to work together on this issue with our hon. Friend the Member for Keighley—

Housing Disrepair

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing this debate, and I thank her for raising this subject on behalf of her constituents. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of housing disrepair at Evelyn Court on Amhurst Road, and the conditions she describes are unacceptable.

The Government are committed to creating a fair and just housing system that works for everyone, and nowhere is the need to improve quality more urgent than in housing. The right hon. Lady asked several questions that I will address in my response. I do not have figures to hand on the number of cases brought under legislation, but I am sure officials can write to her with an answer.

Good-quality housing can help to improve a wide range of outcomes, including better health, quality of life, educational attainment, community cohesion, labour mobility and carbon emissions. There are significant societal impacts of poor-quality homes—we know that the Building Research Establishment recently estimated that poor-quality homes cost the NHS £1.4 billion a year and research funded by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities estimates that the total annual cost to society is £18.6 billion.

We have made considerable progress on housing quality. It has improved significantly since 2009. Then, 30% or 6.7 million homes were non-decent. In 2020, that had fallen to 4 million or 16%. Despite that progress, we recognise there is still more to do. Poor-quality housing is not spread evenly by tenure or region. Some 13% of social rented sector homes are currently non-decent. The highest rates of non-decent social housing are in the south-west, at a rate of 16.9%, and the situation is worse in the private rented sector, which has a 21% rate of non-decent homes, with Yorkshire and the Humber having the highest percentage of non-decency at 33.7%.

The Government want to take action and I will let the right hon. Lady know what we are doing. The levelling-up White Paper outlined a set of ambitious missions to level up the country and support communities. The Government set the ambition to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas. That means we will bring about 800,000 homes up to a decent standard across both the private and social rented sectors, and that will support the most vulnerable in society.

We recognise the issues that the right hon. Lady raised. She talked about the White Paper. That is why we are implementing the commitments in the social housing White Paper, which will drive up the quality of housing stock and housing services, and improve the lives of social housing residents in England. That work is critical to meeting our ambition to halve the number of non-decent rented homes by 2030, with the biggest improvements in the lowest-performing areas as part of our levelling-up agenda.

The social housing White Paper measures will transform social housing regulation and redress, creating proactive consumer regulation and rebalancing the relationship between landlord and tenant. We will introduce legislation to give the regulator of social housing stronger powers to drive up consumer standards, with regular inspections of the largest landlords. We will give the regulator greater enforcement powers to tackle failing landlords, including unlimited fines for the worst offenders and powers to complete emergency repairs where needed. Landlords will be required to report on new tenant satisfaction measures that tenants and the regulator will be able to use to see how a landlord is performing.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the housing ombudsman. We have already strengthened the housing ombudsman’s powers to ensure that when residents make a complaint, landlords take quick and effective action to put things right. In October last year, the housing ombudsman published its “Spotlight on: Damp and Mould” report, which made 26 recommendations on how landlords can improve services for residents based on learning from hundreds of investigations across 142 landlords and more than 500 responses to its call for evidence. In February and March 2021, the Department delivered on its commitment in the White Paper to run a campaign to raise awareness of, and confidence in, the social housing complaint-making process. To build on the success of that campaign, we are running a second four-to-six week campaign, which commenced this week on 21 February. The campaign consists of adverts on social media and radio, which guide residents on how to make things right.

We will publish a White Paper in the spring, setting out how we will support those in the private rented sector, including ending section 21 evictions and giving all tenants a strong right to redress. The White Paper will explore new standards for rented homes, introducing a national landlord register and taking tough action against rogue landlords. We will also review the decent homes standard to make sure it is fit for the present day and applies across all rented tenures.

We will also address poor energy efficiency by targeting retrofit funding at the worst performing homes and those least able to pay. The £2.2 billion funding through the home upgrade grant, social housing decarbonisation fund and boiler upgrade scheme will help to improve energy efficiency and lower energy bills. The future homes standard and future building standards will also ensure that new homes and buildings reach much higher energy efficiency standards. Through the Building Safety Bill, we will also legislate for the new homes ombudsman to support the purchases of new build homes when things go wrong.

I close by thanking the right hon. Lady again for securing today’s debate and speaking so passionately on behalf of her constituents. I hope the residents of Evelyn Court know that we really do care about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that housing works for everyone. The Government understand the scale of the challenge that we face, which is why the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has set those ambitious missions to halve the number of rented homes that fail to meet the decent homes standard across both the social rented and private sectors.

Question put and agreed to.

Christians and Religious Minorities: India

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. I commend him for his tireless work in supporting freedom of religion or belief, including as chair of the all-party group. I thank him and his colleagues for their 2021 annual “Commentary on the Current State of International Freedom of Religion or Belief”, published in March last year, which provides valuable insight into the state of freedom of religion or belief around the world. I look forward to the 2022 edition.

I am grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for their contributions.

We heard many passionate views on all sides, and I hope hon. Members will understand that due to the situation in Ukraine and the debates happening in the main Chamber, I am providing cover for my Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, so any topics that I have not been able to address fully will of course be followed up by letter.

The hon. Member for Strangford gave a passionate speech in support of religious minorities. He mentioned Rana Ayyub, and that is a case that the UN is looking into. I want to reassure him that the Government are committed to working for freedom of religion or belief for all and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. I want to put on record the fact that we condemn all threats, discrimination and violence perpetrated on the grounds of religion, belief or faith.

Although this debate focuses on Christians, we must not forget those who have been persecuted around the world for belonging to other religions and holding other beliefs, or for having no religious belief at all. We want everyone, everywhere, to be able to live in accordance with their own conscience and exercise their faith or beliefs freely. That not only is the right thing to do for individuals, but makes countries stronger. When countries protect and promote freedom of religion or belief, they tend to be more stable, more prosperous and safer from violent extremism.

The Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to promoting that agenda globally by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton as his special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I am very pleased to see her in the debate. She has been working closely with the Minister of State responsible for human rights, Lord Ahmad, to drive forward our work on freedom of religion or belief.

My colleagues in the FCDO wanted me to give a bit of background on India, although I fear that it might look shallow compared to the extensive briefing we received from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I think he should probably be briefing the FCDO. As we have heard, India, like the UK, is a society with many different faith communities. It has a proud history of religious tolerance and is among the most religiously diverse societies in the world, with significant religious minority communities, including Christians and Muslims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, it also has strong constitutional and legal protections for human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and is home to a vibrant faith-based civil society.

We recognise that, in a country of 1.3 billon people, the situation for minorities varies, depending on the region and their social and economic status. It is up to the Government of India to uphold those freedoms and rights, which are guaranteed by its strong democratic framework and legal mechanisms.

We have an open and constructive dialogue with India. As with any issue, where we have concerns, we raise them directly with its Government. We have previously discussed the impact of legislative and judicial measures on minorities with the Indian Government at the ministerial level.

There were some questions that hon. Members raised that I think I have answers to. The hon. Member for Coventry North West talked about agricultural reform laws. I understand that India repealed the three agricultural reform laws in December 2021. We recognise the interest in the Indian Government’s agricultural reforms, particularly among the Indian diaspora in this country.

There were questions around India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act. I wanted to let hon. Members know that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon has discussed the impact of that and other judicial measures on India’s minorities with Indian Government Ministers. As I said earlier, its strength—like that of the UK—is its diversity, and it is the Indian Government’s responsibility to address the concerns of all Indian citizens, regardless of their faith.

Several Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, discussed the interfaith marriage laws. My understanding is that the British high commission in New Delhi also monitors all political and societal trends in India. We have noted new interfaith marriage laws in some Indian states, but that is as far as I am able to speak on those laws. I cannot confirm some of the things that Members have said during the debate, but they have been noted, and I am sure that Foreign Office Ministers will be able to address anything required in more detail.

[Bob Blackman]

One of the key concerns is around abduction and forced marriage, particularly of young women, which is the prime focus of those particular laws. I am sure the Minister agrees that forcing someone to change their religion after having abducted them from their family is not only morally wrong, but reprehensible.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is morally wrong and reprehensible to carry out such actions.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green requested UK action in India. As other Members have recognised, faith leaders in India are influential figures in their local communities, so UK Ministers and diplomats regularly meet them to understand their perspectives and hold a dialogue with diverse communities across that country.

Our high commissioner has visited a number of different places of worship in India and met faith leaders there. He has met Christian communities, including visiting Sacred Heart Cathedral, where he met the Catholic Archbishop of Delhi, and the Cathedral Church of the Redemption, where he met the Moderator of the Church of North India.

Faith-based NGOs also make a positive contribution to Indian society. Over the last three years, staff across our network in India have worked with local NGOs to bring together young people of different faiths. Through our high commission, we are supporting a UK-India interfaith leadership programme, which brings together emerging Indian leaders of diverse faith backgrounds, including Christians and Muslims, to exchange UK-India perspectives and foster understanding and respect. In May last year, the high commission held a virtual iftar to celebrate the important contribution that Indian Muslims make to Indian society and to bring together different faith communities. My fellow Minister, Lord Ahmad also met with faith leaders while visiting India last March.

I know that Members are interested in the UK-India relationship. It is central to our foreign policy tilt towards the Indo-Pacific. In May 2021, the UK and Indian Governments committed to strengthening the relationship through our new comprehensive strategic partnership. Our 2030 road map, which was launched by the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi last year, will guide our co-operation and benefit people across both countries. It will support regional and global security and prosperity.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked a few questions to which I am afraid I do not have the answers. I think some of them are DIT questions, but our 1.6 million strong diaspora community provides a living bridge of people, commerce, ideas and culture between our countries. It is an important strategic relationship, but even within that group there are many views that we have to take into account.

[Jim Shannon]

Minister, in the Open Doors top 50 league India is now No. 10; it was No. 31. That is clear factual evidence of lots of persecution and attacks on people of religious minorities. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but will she ask the Minister responsible to bring this to the attention of the Indian authorities? It is important that we are constructive in our contributions, but also that we are friends who can highlight issues that people are telling us are important?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I understand that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is something that I can ask my colleagues to do. I know that this is the sort of regular engagement that they have with their counterparts.

I can update those Members who raised the UK-India trade relationship. We recently launched negotiations for a comprehensive UK-India free trade agreement, which would particularly benefit the north of England, the west midlands, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will work with India to support its COP26 commitments, including through a $1 billion green guarantee and British international investment partnership. Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India are enabling the world to navigate its way out of the pandemic with their collaboration to produce covid-19 vaccines at scale.

I now want to turn to the UK’s wider work on freedom of religion or belief. In July we will host an international ministerial conference. We will use the conference to bring Governments from across the world together with faith leaders to drive collective action in promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities around the world, so that everyone, everywhere can practise their religion or belief freely. We continue to work with organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the G7, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, to bolster international action on freedom of religion or belief.

The Prime Minister’s special envoy—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton—who even now is working in this capacity by participating in the debate, is currently chairing the alliance, and I thank her for her commitment and leadership. In November, the Foreign Secretary attended the alliance ministerial forum and underlined the UK’s commitment to working with partner countries to support freedom and openness around the world. We and our alliance partners raise awareness of cases of particular concern and advocate for the rights of individuals persecuted or discriminated against on grounds of their religion or belief, as we have heard from hon. Members today.

We also continue to implement the recommendations made by the Bishop of Truro’s review of our work in support of persecuted Christians and members of all faiths and beliefs and those of no religious belief. We have implemented 13 of the recommendations. We are close to achieving a further six and we are making good progress on the remaining three.

To conclude, it is right that we reaffirm our commitment to do all we can to foster intercommunal and interfaith understanding and respect around the world. That is why we continue to discuss issues of freedom of religion or belief with the Indian authorities. This is part of our dialogue and partnership with India, a country with a long history of religious diversity. Our partnership with India is very important to us. It is a partnership that brings great benefits to communities in both our countries.

Draft Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022.

The draft order was laid before the House on 24 January 2022. If approved and made, it will implement the proposals submitted by Somerset County Council for a single unitary for the whole of the Somerset County Council area. The order will establish for the people of Somerset a new single unitary council. Implementing that proposal and establishing the unitary authority will enable stronger leadership and engagement at the strategic level and with communities at the most local level.

Somerset is not among the areas for an early county deal, but we will continue discussions with it about a future devolution deal. The reform for which the draft order provides will help pave the way for such a future deal.

Hon. Members may remember that this is locally led process of reform began formally on 9 October 2020. On that date, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), invited all the principal councils in Somerset and the neighbouring unitary councils of Bath and North East Somerset and of North Somerset to put forward, if they wished, proposals to replace the current two-tier system of local government with single-tier local government.

The invitation set out the criteria for unitarisation. Unitary authorities would be established that are likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area of the proposal, giving greater value for money, generating savings, and providing stronger strategic and local leadership, with more sustainable structures; to command a good deal of local support, as assessed in the round, across the whole area of the proposal; and to have an area with a credible geography, consisting of one or more existing local government areas with an aggregate population that is either within the range 300,000 to 600,000, or such other figure that, having regard to the circumstances of the authority, including local identity and geography, could be considered substantial.

Two locally led proposals for local government reorganisation in Somerset were received in December 2020, one for a single unitary council and one for two unitary councils. Before we made any decisions on how to move forward, the Government consulted widely. The statutory consultation, which ran from 22 February to 19 April, prompted almost 5,500 responses. Of those responses, 5,167, or 94% of the total responses, were from residents living in the area affected. Both proposals received a good deal of support: some 3,000 residents, or 57% of those who responded, supported a two-unitary option; some 2,000 residents, or 35% of those who responded, supported a single-unitary option; 72% of respondents from the business sector supported a single-unitary option; and 88% of respondents from other public service providers also supported the single-unitary option.

My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced his decision on the proposals on 21 July 2021. He made a balanced judgment, assessing both proposals against the three criteria to which I referred, which were set out in the invitation of 9 October. He also had regard to all representations received, including responses to the consultation, and to all other relevant information available to him. He concluded that the two-unitary proposal did not meet the criterion of improving local government and service delivery across the area. He also concluded that it did not meet the credible geography criterion. He concluded that the single-unitary proposal met all three criteria set out in the invitation of 9 October.

The Government believe that there is a powerful case for implementing this locally led proposal for change. It will improve local government by enhancing social care and safeguarding services through closer connection with related services, such as housing, leisure and benefits. It will also improve local government by offering opportunities for improved strategic decision making in areas such as housing, planning and transport. It will provide improvements to local partnership working with other public sector bodies by aligning with arrangements in existing partnerships and allowing existing relationships and partnership working to be maintained without disruption. It will generate savings estimated by the county council to be £52.6 million over five years.

The unitary decision will preserve service delivery over a county-wide area that has an established local identity that is easily understood by residents. It will provide a single point of contact, so that residents, businesses and local communities will be able to access all council services from one place. If Parliament approves the draft order, from 1 April 2023, there will be a single unitary council for Somerset, delivering the improvements that I have just outlined.

We have prepared the draft order in discussion with all the councils concerned. I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the process for their work, which they undertook together constructively and collaboratively—not least local MPs. Our discussions with the councils included discussing the transitional and electoral arrangements. Those are key in how the councils will drive forward implementation. Where there has been unanimous agreement between all the councils, we have adopted their preferred approach. Where there were different views of the detailed provisions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered all the differing views and reached a decision accordingly.

Turning to the detail of the draft order, I will highlight its key provisions. The order provides that, on 1 April 2023, the districts of Mendip, Sedgemoor, Somerset West and Taunton, and South Somerset will be abolished. The councils of those districts will be wound up and dissolved. Their functions will transfer to the new unitary Somerset Council.

The draft order also provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. Those include, in May 2022, elections for the new unitary council, which will assume its full powers on 1 April 2023. The elections will be on the basis of a 110-member authority, with 55 two-member electoral divisions. Subsequent elections to the unitary council will be in May 2027 and every four years thereafter. We expect that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will undertake a full electoral review before the May 2027 election. Parish council elections due in May 2023 will be brought forward to 2022 to align with the unitary council election cycle. A duty to co-operate during the transitional period to 1 April 2023 will be placed on existing councils.

To support councils in the transitional period to 1 April next year, if the draft order is approved and made, I intend to use my powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to issue a direction. The direction will provide statutory support to the voluntary protocol that the Somerset councils have already adopted on entering into contracts and the disposal of land during the transitional period. As one might expect, that is in line with the approach adopted in most previous unitarisations. It will ensure that the new unitary council has appropriate oversight of the commitments that predecessor councils may enter into during the transitional period and that the new unitary council will take on from 1 April 2023. Before issuing any such direction, I will invite council views on a draft.

In conclusion, through the draft order we seek to replace the existing local government structures in Somerset that were set up in 1974 with a new council that will be able to deliver high-quality, sustainable and local services to the people of Somerset. The council will be able to provide effective leadership at the strategic and the most local levels. All the existing councils have made it clear that they share those aims and are committed to the very best services for Somerset communities. The draft order will deliver that and, on that basis, I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have been very encouraged by our spirited debate on this statutory instrument. Yesterday we managed to complete our discussion in 15 minutes; this has been a genuine debate. I thank all members of the Committee for their contribution, but I will say that I disagree with the entire premise of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bootle. He seems to believe that this is an issue of local government finance. It is not; it is about devolution and levelling up. Unitarisation is not a solution to deep-seated—

[Peter Dowd]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, because I can tell that the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate about local government finance. This is a structural change order. He did not speak in the local government finance settlement debate a couple of weeks ago, in which he could have raised many of these issues. In fact, a lot of the points that he made would be more suitable for a debate in the Somerset County Council chamber, and were not really relevant to the structural change order that we are considering.

I must stress to all Members—I have made this point previously—that unitarisation is not a one-size-fits-all solution to multiple problems. If what the hon. Gentleman said is true—from what I heard from Members representing Somerset, it is not true that there are deep-seated financial issues—unitarisation would not fix the problems, so it does not make sense for him to argue that those problems are why we are making these changes. Considering what we have had to do in Liverpool—I will not go into the details—it is extraordinary that he, a Merseyside MP, is talking about what is happening in Somerset.

[Peter Dowd]

On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister really needs to get her facts right. I am the Member of Parliament responsible for Sefton Council, which is a different borough. Why on earth she is referring to Liverpool, when I do not represent Liverpool, is beyond me.

[The Chair]

Thank you for your intervention. We do not need to get sidetracked into the finances of local authorities. We are dealing with Somerset, and if we could stick with what we are here to debate, I would be grateful.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Thank you, Mr Efford; I think that is right. However, the hon. Member for Bootle made a point about Tory-controlled councils, so I think I can make a point about Labour-controlled councils in response. He is a Merseyside MP—I did not say he was a Liverpool MP—and the fact is that the four commissioners that we sent from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities were appointed after an emergency inspection found a serious breakdown of governance and multiple failures. The inspection was triggered by the arrest of ex-Mayor Joe Anderson.

[The Chair]

Order. We are not going any further down that road. We are going to debate Somerset.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, and I will come back to Somerset.

[Mike Amesbury]

On a point of order, Mr Efford. Reference was made to Liverpool and Merseyside, because you have just increased the fees for the commissioners by 50%—

[The Chair]

No, no, no. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate, and it is not for this debate. Good try, but it is not for this debate. Minister, stick with Somerset.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Thank you, Mr Efford. I shall now stick with Somerset. Opposition Members have raised multiple questions, but first I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil for adding quite a lot of local context to what has been going on and reminding me that we have had considerable engagement not just with Members of Parliament—we know that they were not unanimous, but the vast majority of Somerset MPs agree with what is happening today—but with district councils. I wrote to them asking for further views about things that we wanted to do around election dates and so on. They were largely Liberal Democrat-controlled councils, and the decision that was being made was not a partisan political one. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising some of those points and allowing me to draw out the context.

I will now move on to some of the questions that were asked. My hon. Friend specifically asked about putting Lib Dem South Somerset into special measures. I cannot do that in the SI debate, but I will update him about some of the issues that he has referred to. I am sure I can get officials to write to him to provide additional information.

The shadow Minister asked a question about engagement and the local community networks, and whether it was 15 or 20. It is 15 to 20; that is something that they can decide themselves. Those local community networks will cover every part of Somerset. They will be, effectively, cabinet committees of the new council and supported by a senior community development officer. I think that is the right way to go, and it shows that these are locally led proposals.

I ask forgiveness from the hon. Member for Bootle, who asked some further questions specifically about the text of the SI. I will write to him on some of those points; I have missed the notes that I made. There was a substantive discussion around the consultation, and he raised very good points. I do not think it is odd for him to raise them. We look at all the decisions that we make in the round, and the referendum principle does not apply here. Those consultations are not referendums; they are advisory. In some cases, they can show that there is a distinct lack of interest in a particular proposal. The way we phrased it in the consultation was not as an either/or, but as a preference. The fact that people might have preferred one to the other did not mean that they did not like the other. That is why the Secretary of State took all those decisions in the round. The basis for the proposal is not just that one criterion, but all the others. I mentioned in my speech that it was about the geographical context as well as the ability to provide for local service delivery, and I am happy to repeat that.

The hon. Gentleman said that the savings were just £52 million, but I should emphasise that there is a huge opportunity here to enhance social care and safeguarding services. I do not think anyone in this room would disagree with that outcome. There are better opportunities for improved strategic decision making and improved service delivery. We will be getting quite a lot from this unitarisation, and I really hope that Members from all parties in Somerset and beyond—all the way to Merseyside—will be able to support us as we continue with these proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022.

Draft North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 General Committees

[The Chair]

I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022.

The order was laid before the House on 24 January 2022. If approved and made, it will implement a proposal submitted by North Yorkshire County Council for a single unitary council for the whole of the North Yorkshire county. The Government believe that strong and dynamic local leadership is critical to levelling up. Such leadership can understand how complex issues come together in a place, tailor policy to local priorities, attract investment, and seize each area’s opportunities.

The order will establish for the people of North Yorkshire a new single unitary council. Implementing the proposal and establishing that unitary authority will enable stronger leadership and far greater engagement, both at the strategic level and with communities at the most local level. It will pave the way, as envisaged in the levelling-up White Paper, for a significant devolution deal involving a directly elected Mayor for North Yorkshire, together with York.

As hon. Members may remember, this is a locally led initiative for reform that formally began on 9 October 2020. On that date, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), invited the principal councils in North Yorkshire and the neighbouring unitary council of the City of York to put forward, if they wished, proposals for replacing the current two-tier system of local government with single-tier local government. That invitation set out the criteria for unitarisation. Unitary authorities would be established,

“which are likely to improve local government and service delivery across the area of the proposal, giving greater value for money, generating savings, providing stronger strategic and local leadership, and which are more sustainable structures…which command a good deal of local support as assessed in the round overall across the whole area of the proposal; and…where the area of each unitary authority is a credible geography consisting of one or more existing local government areas with an aggregate population which is either within the range 300,000 to 600,000, or such other figure that, having regard to the circumstances of the authority, including local identity and geography, could be considered substantial.”

Two locally led proposals for local government reorganisation in North Yorkshire were received in December 2020: one for a single unitary and one for two unitary councils. Before we made any decisions on how to move forward, the Government consulted widely. That statutory consultation, which ran from 22 February to 19 April 2021, prompted almost 4,300 responses on the North Yorkshire proposals. Of those responses, some 3,600—84% of the total responses—were from residents living in the area affected, 53% of whom were in favour of a single unitary council. In addition, 52% of business respondents supported the single unitary proposal, along with the majority of public sector partners, including 68% of the health organisations that responded, nine out of 12 education organisations, and police and fire organisations.

My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State announced his decisions on the proposals on 21 July 2021. He made a balanced judgment, assessing both proposals against the three criteria to which I referred, and that were set out in the invitation on 9 October 2020. He also had regard to all representations received, including responses to the consultation, and to all other relevant information available to him. He concluded that the proposal for two unitaries did not meet the criterion of improving local government and service delivery across the area or the credible geography criterion, but that the single unitary proposal for North Yorkshire met all three criteria.

The Government believe that there is a powerful case for implementing that locally led proposal for change. It will improve local government by enhancing social care and safeguarding services through a closer connection with related services, such as housing, leisure and benefits. It will improve local government by offering opportunities for improved strategic decision making in such areas as housing, planning and transport. It will improve local partnership working with other public sector bodies by aligning with arrangements in existing public sector partnerships and allowing existing relationships and partnership working to be maintained without disruption. It will generate savings, estimated by the county council to be £31.9 million per annum. It will preserve service delivery over a county-wide area that has an established local identity and that is easily understood by residents. It will provide a single point of contact so that residents, businesses and local communities will be able to access all council services from one place. If Parliament approves the draft order, from 1 April 2023 there will be a single unitary council for North Yorkshire, delivering the improvements that I have just outlined.

We prepared the draft order in discussion with all the councils concerned. I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the process for their work, which has been undertaken constructively and collaboratively. Our discussions with the councils included the transitional and electoral arrangements, which are key to how the councils will drive forward implementation. Where there has been unanimous agreement between all the councils, we have adopted their preferred approach. There were some differences in views and, where those existed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered all the differing views and reached a decision accordingly.

On the detail of the draft order, I highlight the key provision. The order provides that on 1 April 2023, the districts of Craven, Hambleton, Harrogate, Richmondshire, Ryedale, Scarborough and Selby will be abolished. The councils of those districts will be wound up and dissolved. In their place, their functions will be transferred to the new unitary North Yorkshire council.

The draft order also provides for appropriate transitional arrangements. In May 2022, there will be elections for the new unitary council, which will assume its full powers from 1 April 2023. The elections will be on the basis of a 90-member authority, with 88 single-member electoral divisions and one two-member division. Subsequent elections to the unitary council will be in May 2027 and every four years thereafter. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a full electoral review before the May 2027 elections. Parish council elections due in May 2023 and May 2024 will be brought forward to May 2022, to align with the unitary council electoral cycle. A duty will be placed on all existing councils to co-operate during the transitional period until 1 April 2023.

To support councils in the transitional period to 1 April 2023, if the draft order is approved and made, I intend to use my powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to issue a direction. The direction will provide statutory support to the voluntary protocol that the North Yorkshire councils have already adopted about entering into contracts and the disposal of land during the transitional period. As one might expect, that is in line with the approach adopted in most previous unitarisations. That will ensure that the new unitary council has appropriate oversight of the commitments that the predecessor councils may enter into during the transitional period and that the new unitary council will take on from 1 April 2023. Before issuing any such direction, I will invite council views on a draft.

Finally, with apologies, I must draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip that was issued to correct three minor errors in schedule 1 of the draft order. The corrections are: to remove an extra “and” between Harrogate Fairfax and Harrogate Starbeck wards; to the spelling of Byram ward; and to put the Mid Craven electoral division in the correct alphabetical order. We are sorry for those minor errors in the original text of the order.

In conclusion, through the draft order, we seek to replace the existing local government structures in North Yorkshire, which were set up in 1974, with a new council that will be able to deliver high-quality and sustainable local services for the people of North Yorkshire. The council will be able to provide stronger and more effective leadership at the strategic and the local level. It will open up the way, with the City of York, for a significant devolution deal, as is referred to in our levelling-up White Paper. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the proposals and for asking several questions. I should be able to answer them and, if not, I will provide additional detail in our regular meetings.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the structural changes order will be standard across all devolution deals. That will be the case for those that the former Secretary of State led in 2020, before the levelling-up White Paper.

The hon. Gentleman asked about sustainability and what the deal will look like. The assurance I can give him is that this is just the beginning of the process; it is not the end. Now that we have got to this stage of the process, we will work closely with the new unitary to decide exactly what the devolution deal will consist of. I cannot answer his questions about which investments will move from one set of councils to the final one, but I do know that the process is locally led. All the councils agree that this is what they want and that it will be good for them. I think we can trust in the ability of the people on the ground in North Yorkshire to deliver on that, and the Department will support them as much as possible.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Scarborough and other councils that may feel lost, given the size of the new unitary, and about whether they will fit in with what happens across the wider area. That will always be a risk when we unitarise. Some things will be lost, but the trade-off is that there are more benefits from moving to a single-tier system. I believe that that council specifically is supportive of this change.

[Mike Amesbury]

Surely there is something in place for the likes of Scarborough, Harrogate and Richmondshire. What new structures will be put in place? Will there be a district committee system?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. I had assumed that he was asking how we will ensure that councils that are different, such as Scarborough, are not lost in this devolution and unitarisation. I cannot provide him with the detail at the moment, but I can write to him with further detail. Officials worked with the councils to do much of this work before I came into post. I am ensuring that the process carries on and that we do not run out of time before the electoral process. If he is happy to wait, I can provide additional detail.

With levelling up, we are trying to ensure that the decisions that are made come not from the top down, but from the people and elected officials on the ground who know what is needed to improve their local areas. That is the approach that we have taken through these structural changes orders, which came before the levelling-up White Paper, and that we will take going forward. We hope that we can get agreement on that across the House in order to do the best for local people across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Throwline Stations

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing today’s important debate. I offer my condolences, and those of the whole Government, to Leeanne Bartley, who is with us today. There is nothing more horrific than losing a child. It is something that we all pray that we never see. I pay tribute to her for her tireless campaigning since her son’s tragic death in 2018. It is impossible not to be moved by this tragedy. It is heartbreaking to hear that Mark Allen drowned after jumping into a freezing reservoir on a hot day and that there were no throwlines in sight, and to hear similar stories of Sam, Lucas and so many of our young constituents.

It is also heartbreaking to learn that a similar tragedy apparently also took place the same year at another reservoir not a mile away. Dwayne Thompson, I am told, drowned aged just 20 after encountering similar freezing temperatures at Audenshaw reservoir, so there is clearly a problem that needs looking at. Leeanne Bartley, Amanda and Stephen Thompson, and Kirsty Furze have all shown tremendous courage, channelling their grief and using a platform that no parent should ever wish to have to press for change. The fact that Mrs Bartley’s petition garnered more than 100,000 signatures and is being debated in the House is testament to her efforts not being in vain. United Utilities, which owns both reservoirs, has installed new throwlines at both sites, as has been discussed, and these throwlines may one day be the difference between life and death for somebody else.

However, I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and others that these things seem to occur only after the tragedy. I was struck by his point that it is not just about having the equipment, because what screams safe to us may scream unsafe to safety professionals. The company is now running hard-hitting campaigns targeted at teenagers, using TV, print and online media, to warn about the dangers of swimming in reservoirs and highlight the risks, as well as collaborating with the fire service.

I will answer a few of the questions raised in the debate, and then talk about what we are doing to protect people and ensure they are able to enjoy the waterways safely.

Many Members asked what the Government are doing on this issue, and I assure them that we are committed to protecting people in the weeks and months ahead. It was interesting to me that this issue does not sit within one Department. I am responding from a local government perspective but, as others have mentioned, the Department for Education is involved, as is the Cabinet Office, in terms of convening. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a role for some waterways, and even the Department for Work and Pensions is involved, because it runs the Health and Safety Executive. When many Departments are looking at something, it is often not that straightforward to get a co-ordinated response, which is why we tend to answer questions specifically on the particular issues afforded in our remit.

The Cabinet Office is currently reviewing coastal water safety. We will explore with all our partners across central and local government what more can be done to raise awareness of water safety, and to increase the provision of throwlines and other vital lifesaving equipment near open bodies of water.

Members asked what landowners can do. Providing them with information is clearly required, and that means ensuring that businesses, landowners and councils are conducting up-to-date and thorough risk assessments. The Local Government Association’s water safety toolkit is an invaluable resource for councils in those cases where the local authority has a role. I am committed to working more closely with the LGA on ensuring that that is being properly publicised and used by local authorities across the country. People need to know about water safety, and we need to do more to publicise that.

Many Members asked about mandatory legislation. That is not where we would start. It may or may not be the answer, but we need to look at the various issues first.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) raised an important point about throwlines being present but not usable, and a lot of work needs to be done to discover the right way to resolve those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Natalie Elphicke) raised issues about compulsory lifejackets and better education. That does not fall within the remit of my Department, but I know that officials will have taken that point away.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Despite my Department covering only England, we need to ensure we have whole country coverage and work together with the devolved Administrations to provide a comprehensive view. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this issue.

There are 40,000 lakes in this country and no matter where anyone is in the UK, they are no further than 70 miles from the coast. Between 2019 and 2020, searches for “wild swimming” increased by 94%. The pandemic has increased the number of people wild swimming. We do not want to discourage people from wild swimming as full-water immersion boosts the immune system, reduces inflammation and has many other health benefits, but we need to ensure people understand the risks involved, especially as more people carry out the activity.

In the past few years we have enjoyed very hot weather, but our waterways remain cold. They remain northern European, even if the weather is becoming Mediterranean. That is one reason why we must ensure people know the risks of wild swimming are just as real as the benefits.

The tragic deaths of Mark, Dwayne and other young people we have mentioned should have been unique accidents, but they were not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) stated, in 2020 alone there were 254 accidental drownings and 631 water-related fatalities in the UK. Combined with the surge in interest in wild swimming, this tragic loss of life highlights and reinforces the responsibility of landowners, whether they are local or not, to properly assess the safety requirements of bodies of water on their land. The Government’s No. 1 priority is to keep people safe, and we expect landowners to act in the same way.

[Sarah Champion]

First, I thank the Minister because she was clearly listening intently to my speech and to the whole debate. One thing that contributed to the death of Sam was that the equipment was overgrown—most of the places where we put throwlines are in areas of dense vegetation. I have a two-part question, thinking about how local authorities assess, and ensure the maintenance of, life-saving equipment for dangerous situations. We have identified that open bodies of water are dangerous, so could the Government say that there have to be so many throwlines for however many metres of waterfront, but also ensure that local authorities go in and make sure regular checks are being done? In the case I mentioned, that meant vegetation being cut down; in others, it may be that the equipment deteriorates in bright sunlight. Doing those things would ensure that, if the equipment is needed, people can access it and it is fit for purpose.

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is a really good point. It is exactly the kind of thing that I would expect the Local Government Association’s water safety toolkit to contain. If it does not, it is probably worth us mentioning it to the LGA when we next meet. I will ask officials to take that point away.

I was going to talk about the 30 different navigation authorities that manage regulated inland waterways, but I will mention just two: the Environment Agency and the Canal & River Trust, which some Members might have heard of. The Canal & River Trust is a charity that owns about 2,000 miles of inland waterway, and the Environment Agency is an arm’s length body of DEFRA that manages 630 miles of waterway. Both bodies are responsible for ensuring that waters are safe, and they have to undertake public safety assessments to work out where public rescue equipment such as throwlines should be on the waterways, so some work is done on that. Those bodies know waterways back to front and know the best places to install throwlines—the busiest locations, particularly where there have been previous safety incidents, or places of high risk, such as waterside parks. Those organisations run proactive public safety campaigns to raise awareness of the risks.

It is clear that we need to keep redoubling efforts to make as safe as possible the unregulated inland waterways and bodies of water that are not covered by charities and arm’s length bodies. The responsibility for providing water safety equipment rests with those organisations but in larger urban areas it rests with local authorities. Local authorities tend to work with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Royal Life Saving Society UK and the National Water Safety Forum, which have been mentioned. Those groups do a great job of warning people, through campaigns, of the dangers of getting into cold water, which can lead to panic, water inhalation and, in serious cases, cardiac arrest.

We all know that the best rules and guidance are redundant if people do not know how to swim to begin with. My hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley and for Southport (Damien Moore) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) were right to draw attention to the critical role of education in all this, and I will speak a bit about what people are being educated on. It goes without saying that swimming is a truly vital life skill, and that is why swimming and water safety form compulsory parts of the physical education curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. As part of the curriculum, pupils are taught to swim at least 25 metres competently and confidently using a range of strokes, and to perform safe self-rescue.

As part of our efforts to help children to catch up on learning and activity lost as a consequence of the pandemic, DFE organised for sports facilities at 101 schools to reopen their pools or extend their swimming offer in the last academic year. DFE has also been working closely with Swim England, the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Oak National Academy to support pupils in returning safely to swimming and to promote water safety education. DFE Ministers were very keen that I mention those points so that people would know what they are doing.

Although education has an important role to play, and the bodies I have mentioned continue to undertake proper risk assessments and put safety mitigations in place, there are other practical steps that each of us should keep in mind when we want to enjoy our waterways, and I will state them for the record as a reminder.

As part of her campaign, Mrs Bartley has really pressed home the importance of talking to children about cold water shock and the dangers of open water. She is absolutely right to stress that it takes a whole different set of skills to swim in open water than in a swimming pool, so what we are doing in schools is critical, but it is not all that needs to be done. The National Water Safety Forum advises swimmers to wear wetsuits and allow their bodies to acclimatise to the change in temperature, instead of jumping straight in. Another essential factor that people should consider before they go swimming in open water is the location, because the safest places to swim will always be supervised beaches with lifeguards and outdoor pools. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution also recommends that people check the weather forecast and sea conditions before a swim on the coast so that they can avoid the potential danger of getting caught in a strong comment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) spoke very eloquently and with much expertise—far more than me—about these issues. Safety in the water is about not just safety equipment but understanding and being aware of the danger. United Utilities, which owns the reservoir where the tragic death of Mark Allen occurred, has now made sure that its signs make clear the risk to life. On its website, it has set out guides for parents, highlighting how a cold shock can affect even proficient swimmers. The advice of the RNLI is:

“If in doubt, don’t go out.”

[Sarah Champion]

I wonder whether the Minister is able to comment on something or pass it to her colleagues in Education. When I was at school, we had swimming lessons. I hated them and they worked, because I have never been near water again, so they have kept me safe. I went to a local authority school, and many local authority pools have now been shut down and many schools are now academies. Is it compulsory or recommended in education that children, particularly primary school children, still have swimming lessons? If not, is it something that the Minister could raise with her colleagues?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, it is part of the key stage curriculum, but I will get DFE Ministers to write more comprehensively to the hon. Lady on this issue. I would not want to say something that is inaccurate, because it is not in my portfolio.

[Mr David Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way before she concludes. As I understand it from her remarks, the Government are yet persuaded that legislation is the appropriate answer to the problem that we are debating, and she wishes to carry out further assessments. When does she anticipate that those assessments will be complete? Although I appreciate the point she makes about education and understanding the risks of the water, which are obviously correct, may I remind her what the coroner said? It was the impetuosity of youth—we all think that we are bullet-proof. Frankly, had there been a throwline there that day, it might well be the case that Mark Allen would be alive today. Will the Minister give serious consideration to legislation?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. We will give serious consideration to all the options. We need to make sure that this is absolutely the right pathway to go down. I understand the points that everyone has made. I do not want to be standing here for another debate when another child or young person has lost their life, so I want my right hon. Friend to know we take this issue very seriously. He has been in government and he knows that it is never a matter of making a statement in Westminster Hall. All sorts of people need to be consulted, and we need to work out which Department would start looking at this issue, but I have committed that we will come back with a response. We should be able to do that in a reasonable amount of time.

I reiterate that we all share the same ambition of making our waterways as safe as possible. There is more that can be done to educate people on the risks, but I know that the bodies charged with keeping people safe take that responsibility seriously and will be upping the ante in the months ahead to prevent deaths such as Mark’s in the future. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government to urge every landowner, council, agency and charity involved in our waterways to find new and engaging ways in the months ahead to teach people about how to enjoy the water safely. We are here to support them in whatever way we can.

Finally, I want to thank again Mark’s mother, Leeanne Bartley, for bringing the petition forward and inviting us to debate this important issue. We are very grateful.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Written Statements

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

All Members will recognise the crucial role that local councils play as the frontline of our democracy and the contribution they make to our levelling-up agenda. That is why the situation at Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is of such concern.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has struggled for many years to resolve a variety of governance issues, including allegations of serious misconduct by both members and officers. The council has had six different leaders in six years and three chief executives over the past three years. This instability has led to a breakdown in trust, respect and confidence between those holding governance roles at the council.

In August 2021, the council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, initiated a value for money governance review into the council’s arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. In their view, until the council is able to resolve various persistent challenges, it is at risk of not having adequate governance arrangements in place to ensure the effective discharge of its statutory responsibilities and to maintain financial sustainability. This comprehensive governance review—“the report”— based on evidence gathered from 75 interviews over a period of three months, was issued to the council on 3 December 2021. It makes 45 wide-ranging recommendations, three of which are statutory recommendations, and in my view provides evidence of significant and systemic best value failure. I would like to thank the team at Grant Thornton for their work, and to recognise the critical importance of external audit in protecting and enhancing local accountability as we level up across the country. Copies of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report paints a deeply troubling picture of mismanagement, a significant breakdown in trust across the authority, and of ineffective scrutiny and accountability arrangements at the authority. This includes, but is not limited to:

On governance, a lack of a clear performance management framework and agreed key corporate indicators has impacted on the ability of the leadership team and cabinet to take an effective grip of the key issues. The effectiveness of the scrutiny boards and the audit and risk assurance committee need improvement.

On culture and leadership, poor behaviour and a lack of trust across the wider organisation continues to exist. Insularity, along with poor engagement with local residents, businesses, external partners, the West Midlands Combined Authority and the Black Country local enterprise partnership, has resulted in a lack of clarity on the authority’s key strategic priorities.

On financial governance, there has been an ineffective approach to budget monitoring and budget setting, and there remains no visible consultation on the council’s budget setting priorities.

On services, the time the authority has spent responding to internal allegations and complaints has impacted on its ability to focus on service improvement. Inadequate procurement and contract management arrangements have led to poor decision making and has impacted negatively on key services. While a recent Ofsted rating of fostering services demonstrates some positive progress with children’s social care services, which were removed from council control and have been run by Sandwell Children’s Trust since April 2018, some areas of significant improvement are still required.

On capacity and capability to improve, while progress under the interim chief executive officer, Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL, is recognised, historically senior officers and members have been unable to make the changes required to move away from the past. Recruitment of a permanent chief executive officer has not yet been achieved.

In light of the evidence in the report, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations is minded to implement the intervention package set out below. 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.

I acknowledge that that is not the conclusion of the report, which states that the “green shoots” identified mitigate the risk that the council is unable to manage and govern itself. However, I believe that on balance and in these particular circumstances the risk of Government inaction in the face of evidence of best value failure is too great. Historically, the council has been slow to improve. Furthermore, the report is clear that it is the interim chief executive officer who is now driving change, and a recent recruitment round has failed to find a new permanent chief executive officer. The council’s recovery is fragile and needs consistent leadership capacity. This should not be taken as a criticism of those who have been working hard to generate “green shoots” of recovery, in particular the interim chief executive officer, and I acknowledge the good recent work of the council to take steps in the right direction. I would also like to thank Mr Bromley-Derry’s employers, McLaren Construction Group, for enabling his appointment.

I recognise that it is unprecedented to propose an intervention without a best value inspection or a Government review. However, I have considered this report carefully and the evidence contained within it satisfies me that there is no need for an additional best value inspection. Instead, I believe what is needed now is support for a council at the beginning of a fragile journey of recovery.

Expressed in formal terms, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council is failing to comply with its best value duty and he is considering exercising his powers of intervention 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 asking for representations on the report and on the proposed intervention package. That letter emphasises the importance of ensuring that the proposed intervention does not distract the council from the improvements that are starting to be made, and that the council should engage with the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge at the end of the month.

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. The proposal is for the council, under the oversight of the commissioners, to prepare and implement an improvement plan, and to report on the delivery of that plan to the Secretary of State every six months; and for the commissioners to appoint a permanent chief executive officer within 18 months and then step back from the council.

I expect the council to continue to take the lead on its recovery. Given the gravity of the report’s findings, the Secretary of State must consider what would happen if the council failed to deliver the necessary changes, at the necessary speed.

The Secretary of State is, consequently, proposing to direct the transfer to the commissioners of all functions associated with:

The governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making by the authority.

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.

The new leadership team is putting in place the necessary foundations and the Secretary of State envisages that the commissioners will work closely with them to build on the work they have begun. 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.

The commissioners will work closely 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’s services. This will ensure that the improvements that he has overseen to date through the Department for Education’s statutory intervention continue to be made, and that services for Sandwell’s vulnerable children and families are delivered to an acceptable standard.

We are inviting representations from the council on the report and the Secretary of State’s proposals by 11 February. We are also seeking its views on moving to a four yearly election cycle at the earliest opportunity and how best to achieve this.

We want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Sandwell, 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 that 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 the rare cases like Sandwell, 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 people deserve better than this from their local councils.

[HCWS540]

Elections Bill

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 12—Purposes referred to in section 39.

New clause 1—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—

“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’.”

This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 2—Permissible donors—

“(1) Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a), after ‘register’ insert ‘at the time at which the donation is made, but not an individual so registered as an overseas elector;”.

This new clause would prevent overseas electors donating to political parties in the UK.

New clause 3—Citizens’ assembly on electoral systems—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a citizens’ assembly representative of the population aged 16 and over to consider electoral systems in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Secretary of State must, for each category of election reformed by section 10 (Simple majority system to be used in elections for certain offices), provide to the assembly a report assessing the effects of the reforms on the matters in subsection (3).

(3) The matters are—

(a) voter engagement and understanding,

(b) electoral integrity,

(c) fairness and proportionality.

(4) A report under subsection (2) must be provided to the assembly no later than three months after the first election in each category of election after this section comes into force.

(5) The assembly must—

(a) consider the reports under subsection (2),

(b) consider other evidence relating to the matters in subsection (3).

(6) The assembly may make recommendations for legislative or policy change, including for parliamentary elections.”

New clause 4—Automatic Voter Registration—

“(1) It is a duty of—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) registration officers

to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers in accordance with the duty under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to public bodies including but not limited to—

(a) HM Revenue and Customs;

(b) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

(c) the National Health Service;

(d) NHS Scotland;

(e) all types of state funded schools;

(f) local authorities;

(g) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(h) HM Passport Office;

(i) police forces;

(j) the TV Licensing Authority.

(4) Registration officers must—

(a) use the information provided under regulations under subsection (2) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or

(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.

(5) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (4), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any mistaken information.

(6) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.

(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (4), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.

(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.”

New clause 5—Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less—

“In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after ‘Scotland’ insert ‘or a parliamentary election’.”

This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 6—Voting by qualifying foreign nationals—

“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—

‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a qualifying foreign national; and’”.

This new clause would allow foreign nationals who either do not need leave to remain in the UK or have been granted such leave to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 7—Voting by EU nationals—

“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—

‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union; and’”.

This new clause would allow EU citizens to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 8—Fines for electoral offences—

“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 5, leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘£500,000, or 5% of the total spend by the organisation or individual being penalised in the election to which the offence relates, whichever is greater’.”

This new clause would allow the Electoral Commission to impose increased fines for electoral offences.

New clause 9—Permissible donors to be based in the United Kingdom and associated offences—

“(1) Section 54 of PPERA (permissible donors) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) At the end of subsection (2)(a), insert ‘ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation.’

(3) After subsection (2)(b)(ii) insert—

‘(iii) employing a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and

(iv) employing at least five staff within the United Kingdom’.

(4) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert ‘has a majority of partners who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and employs at least five staff within the United Kingdom.’

(5) At the end of subsection (2)(h), insert ‘has a majority of those persons with significant control who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, and also either employs no staff at all, or employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom.’

(6) Section 61 of PPERA (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations) is amended in accordance with subsection (7).

(7) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) A person commits an offence if they are a director of a company, hold a position of significant control in an unincorporated association, or are a partner in a limited liability partnership, and that company, association or partnership—

(a) is not a permissible donor and offers a donation to a political party (whether the donation is accepted or not), or

(b) commits, or otherwise causes to be committed, an act which were the body be a person, would be an offence under subsection (1) or (2).’”

This new clause makes requirements for individual and company donors to be based in the United Kingdom and makes persons running companies liable for donation restriction evasion offences committed by those companies.

New clause 10—Removal of requirement for election agent’s address to be published—

“(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 67 (appointment of election agent), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Though if the candidate or the person acting on behalf of the candidate under this section provides a statement signed by the candidate that the candidate requires the address of the election agent not to be made public and instead states the relevant area within which that address is situated, the public notice under subsection (6) should state that relevant area rather than the address.

(6B) In this section, “relevant area” means—

(a) for a parliamentary election, the constituency,

(b) for an Authority election, the Assembly constituency,

(c) for any other local election, local government area, or

(d) if the address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which it is situated.’”

This new clause would remove the requirement for public notice of the addresses of election agents (including candidates acting as their own agent) to be given at parliamentary and local elections. The area in which the address is situated could instead be given, as for candidates.

New clause 13—Proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons—

“(1) The simple majority system must not be used for any Parliamentary general election after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to establish a new proportional representation system of election for Members of the House of Commons that would be expected to result in seats being held by each party roughly reflecting the proportion of votes cast for candidates of that party at the preceding general election.

(3) A system is suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) if it would over the past five Parliamentary general elections have had a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (which may include provision amending any enactment) contingent on the prohibition in subsection (1).”

This new clause would abolish first past the post for UK general elections and require the Government to take all reasonable steps to introduce proportional representation.

New clause 14—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—

“(1) Section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (c), after ‘Ireland’ insert—

‘or a foreign national who has—

(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;

(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;

(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or

(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.’”

New clause 15—Prohibition of double registration—

“In section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) A person is only entitled to be registered at one address within the United Kingdom at any one time.’”

This new clause seeks to provide an additional check and balance against double voting in UK Parliamentary elections.

New clause 16—Restrictions on foreign and foreign-influenced donations—

“(1) PPERA is amended as follows.

(2) In section 54(1) (circumstances in which party may not accept donation), after paragraph (aa) insert—

‘(ab) the party has not been given a declaration as required by section 54C; or’.

(3) In section 54(2) (permissible donors), in paragraph (b)(ii), for ‘carries on business in the United Kingdom’ substitute—

‘satisfies the condition set out in subsection (2ZAA)’.

(4) After section 54(2ZA) insert—

‘(2ZAA) The condition referred to in subsection (2)(b)(ii) is that the company or limited liability partnership’s profits generated and taxable within the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months are greater than the value of the donation given.’

(5) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), insert—

‘54C Declaration as to whether profit condition is satisfied

(1) A company or limited liability partnership making to a registered party a donation in relation to which the condition set out in section 54(2ZAA) applies must give to the party a written declaration stating whether or not the company or limited liability partnership satisfies that condition.

(2) A declaration under this section must also state the company or limited liability partnership’s full name, address and registration number.

(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.

(4) The Commission may issue a notice to a person to provide accounts for the purpose of verifying whether a declaration made under this section is accurate.

(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (4) commits an offence.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a declaration under this section to be retained for a specified period.

(7) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply where, by reason of section 71B(1)(b), the entity by whom the donation would be made is a permissible donor in relation to the donation at the time of its receipt by the party.

(8) For the purposes of the following provisions, references in this section to receipt by a registered party should be read instead as follows—

(a) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 7, receipt by the regulated donee;

(b) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 11, receipt by the recognised third party;

(c) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 15, receipt by the permitted participant;

(d) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983, receipt by the candidate or the candidate’s election agent.’

(6) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), insert—

‘55A Donations and national security risk

(1) The Commission may give a notice (“a call-in notice”) if the Commission reasonably suspects that a qualifying donation has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity.

(2) If the Commission decides to give a call-in notice, the notice must be given to—

(a) the person who made the donation,

(b) the party that received the donation,

(c) the Secretary of State, and

(d) such other persons as the Commission considers appropriate.

(3) When assessing whether a donation has given or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, Commission must consider the characteristics of the person who made the donation, including—

(a) their sector or sectors of commercial activity or holdings,

(b) their technological capabilities,

(c) any links to entities which may seek to undermine or threaten the interests of the United Kingdom, including the integrity of its elections,

(d) their ultimate controller, or if they can be readily exploited, (e) whether the acquirer they, or their ultimate controller, has committed, or is linked to, criminal or illicit activities that are related to national security, or activities that have given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security.

(4) In this section, a “qualifying donation” is a donation of an amount exceeding £25,000.

(5) The Commission may, in relation to the Commission’s functions under this section, issue a notice to a person to—

(a) provide information, or

(b) attend, or

(c) give evidence as if such a notice was a notice under section 19 or 20 of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.

(6) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (5) commits an offence.

(7) In this section, “assessment period” in relation to a call-in notice under this section has the same meaning as in section 23 of National Security and Investment Act 2021 in relation to a call-in notice under that Act.

(8) The Commission must, before the end of the assessment period in relation to a call-in notice—

(a) make a final order, or

(b) give a final notification to each person to whom the call-in notice was given.

(9) The Commission may, during the assessment period, make a final order if the Commission—

(a) is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the qualifying donation to which the call-in notice applies has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, and

(b) reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating the risk.

(10) During the assessment period, the Commission may make an interim order in relation to a qualifying donation if the Commission reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of safeguarding electoral integrity during that period.

(11) An order under subsection (9) or (10) may—

(a) require a donation to be held unspent for a period as may be prescribed in the order,

(b) require a donation to be refused,

(c) require a donation to be returned, or

(d) prohibit the acceptance of any donation by any registered party from the person who made the donation to which the call-in notice applies, or from a prescribed person or category of person connected to that person, for a period as may be prescribed in the order.

(12) The Commission must keep each order under review and may vary or revoke it.’

(7) In section 156 (orders and regulations)—

(a) in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—

‘(za) any order under section 55A;’;

(b) after subsection (4D) insert—

‘(4E) Subsection (2) does not apply to regulations under section 54C and regulations may not be made under that section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’

(8) In Schedule 20 (penalties), at the appropriate places insert the following entries—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy and empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way. An important part of that is ensuring that electoral services—be they registering to vote, applying for an absent vote or applying for a voter card—are as convenient and accessible as possible. To that end, we have tabled new clause 11 and new schedule 1 to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service and an online voter card application service. These amendments also provide similar powers for such applications in Northern Ireland.

As it stands, it is not possible for electors to apply for an absent vote online. Electors who wish to apply for an absent vote must do so via a paper form that they must submit to their local electoral registration officer via post. New clause 11 and new schedule 1 will enable the identity of applicants using those services to be verified, as well as identity verification for paper absent vote applications, as is already the case for registration applications. That includes powers to enable real-time identity verification—that is, identity verification while an applicant is in the process of completing their application—for voter card applications, absent vote applications and registration applications.

That issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). The Government agreed in principle with her points and committed to considering an online service for electors to make applications for an absent vote once further work was done to understand how best to implement such a service. That commitment is being honoured here with the tabling of amendments to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service.

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

I thank the Minister for being receptive to the points that were raised in Committee about putting many more of the ways in which we engage with democracy online. I wonder if she has had time to reflect on whether the Government may have gained advantage from pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill, because it strikes me that not only did the instruction order after Second Reading bring forward parts of the Bill that were not given scrutiny by the full House, but there have also been a huge amount of Government amendments at this late stage. What reflections does she have on the ways in which she might consult the House on constitutional matters before bringing forward Bills in future?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have nothing further to add to what we discussed in Committee. I understand the hon. Lady’s point—we want our legislation to be as rigorous and robust as possible. I hope that the open relationship that she and I had when she was shadowing me is one that I will be able to continue with her successors. That is how we will get very good legislation on the statute books.

As I was saying, that commitment is being honoured here with the tabling of amendments to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service. That will include a process by which the identity of absent vote applicants can be verified. The identity verification process will be made to apply to paper applications as well as to applications made online.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for going through the implications of new clause 11, which I very much welcome. Does it at all affect the Government’s position on the length of election campaigns, which she will be aware has been a point of debate within this Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill? Will the measure help to shorten election campaigns in the long term?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I think it is very possible that this measure will assist people in speeding up the process by which they can register, which will of course have a positive impact in terms of the length of time people have to get ready for elections. I know that my right hon. Friend has other concerns about the length of time required to conduct elections, and those matters are separate from what we are discussing today, but I am very happy to continue discussions on that with her.

New clause 11 and new schedule 1 also include powers to enable identity verification of partially completed voter card applications, making the process more efficient and minimising unnecessary delays in processing applications. I am pleased to say that these new clauses will support our aim to ensure that voter identification works for all eligible voters.

I know that the detail of voter identification remains of great interest to hon. Members. The Government have always committed to being open about our plans. I wish to use this opportunity to highlight to the House the policy statement on voter identification published on gov.uk on 6 January that sets out in more detail our implementation plans for the policy.

Today, we are introducing a group of clarificatory amendments on voter identification that support those plans. Amendments 53 to 56 and amendments 62 to 65 will ensure that any elector who does not possess one of the wide range of photographic identification documents accepted under our proposals would be able to apply for a voter card or anonymous elector’s document when registering to vote, thus simplifying and making the system more accessible.

For electors who are registered to vote at multiple addresses, such as students, amendments 57 and 66 clarify that it will not be mandatory to make an application to each electoral registration officer with whom they are registered—only one would be needed. It is also important that voter cards and anonymous elector’s documents are designed appropriately, and amendments 61 and 70 provide some additional flexibility around how to ensure that.

With respect specifically to anonymous electors and the anonymous elector’s documents, amendments 71, 80, 83, 85 and 88 will ensure that an anonymous elector’s identity can still be verified effectively at the polling station without risk of their anonymity being compromised, and that they can be provided with an anonymous elector’s document in a convenient way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate the amendments that clarify what travel documents are permitted. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has passed a report, and when I questioned the hon. Lady’s predecessor, it was clear that the list of documents could have been expanded to all photo ID concessionary cards, including the young person’s travel card, which requires a photo in all documentation. However, the Government chose to ignore young person passes and only include the older person passes in the main. May I ask why the Minister has done that? Her predecessor did say that she would think again about it. Why have they not done so on this issue?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I did look into this issue, and the reason why we have not accepted it is that the process for getting travel concessionary passes for older voters is more rigorous and robust than that for young people. The new robust checks that we would have at the threshold for voter ID are met by the older voters’ concessionary passes but not by the young voters’ passes. That is why this is the case.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Rather than outlining a list, why does the Minister not take the approach of outlining the thresholds that her Department think are required for an ID to be valid? The travel companies might then wish to meet that threshold. In that way, everyone will know what the Minister is talking about, rather than her just producing a random list and then dismissing the other passes.

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is a good question. It is something that we discussed in Committee and we decided that the best way to do that would be through secondary legislation. We did debate what the thresholds were, but this is something that can be resolved when further detail comes out in secondary legislation. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s comments at that stage.

As I was saying, amendments 82, 84 and 87 will help ensure clarity to both electors and polling station staff as to which forms of identification will be accepted. In line with other registration decisions, amendment 74 introduces an appeal process against the refusal of an application for a voter card or absent vote.

Finally, on this group of Government amendments, amendments 49 to 50, 76 to 79, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 105 and 108 seek to provide the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland with the ability to provide confidential lists of dates of birth to polling stations at all elections in Northern Ireland, which will facilitate the implementation of existing provisions.

[Cat Smith]

Before the Minister moves on, I just wonder whether she, since taking up her post, has had a chance to meet the Association of Electoral Administrators, which has raised the concern that it is already quite difficult to recruit volunteers to staff polling stations. Its concern is that being asked to check these forms of ID will be a disincentive for volunteers to come forward because of the potential conflict between a voter whose ID is not valid and the volunteer who is staffing the polling station. Has she discussed that with the Association of Electoral Administrators, and if so, how did that conversation go?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, I have had a meeting with AEA representatives and we talked about a range of issues. I cannot remember the discussions verbatim and to the letter, but these are matters that we are taking into consideration throughout.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

A Government’s role should be to try to encourage more and more people into the democratic process. The introduction of photo ID cards, in my view, will do exactly the opposite. Can the Minister explain to the House how the introduction of photo ID cards will increase participation, particularly for the elderly and those in vulnerable communities?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have tested this measure in extensive pilots. Most people have photographic ID, and those who do not will be provided with voter ID free of charge. It is important that we protect the franchise. This regulation has not been updated since 1872. We have debated it extensively—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when we discussed it—and we are confident that it will not have an impact on voting.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Does the Minister welcome the fact that in Swindon, when we had the voter ID pilots, our turnout went up? When the pilot came to an end, my residents complained that it was not already in place.

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and shows that we have carried out thorough investigations into the impact. I am pleased that pilots such as the one in Swindon have been able to prove the Government’s case.

Turning to the Government amendments on franchise measures, there are two technical amendments to schedule 7 for the EU citizen voting and candidacy provisions. Amendment 116 seeks to apply provisions in the Bill to amend the voting and candidacy rights of European citizens to the relevant elections in the City of London, which are governed by a unique legislative frame- work. It was therefore necessary to conduct additional investigations and engagement in order to finalise the provisions for inclusion in the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to bring City of London ward elections into line with those of the rest of England.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The Government themselves say time and again that EU citizens make such a contribution to the UK. Does the Minister agree that it seems a cynical move that EU citizens with settled status will now be disenfranchised?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We had multiple discussions on EU citizenship when we debated Brexit legislation. These are technical amendments to City of London voting rights, and some relate to the business franchise as well, so the hon. Lady’s remarks are not relevant to this piece of legislation.

Amendment 117 is a minor technical amendment that corrects an oversight in the drafting and makes no changes to the effect or scope of the Bill. It reinserts a cross-reference to the definition of “qualifying Commonwealth citizen” in section 79 of the Local Government Act 1972. This will prevent any ambiguity and will ensure a common understanding of the term in this instance.

The technical amendments to the digital imprints provisions will ensure that the new regime clearly delivers the policy intent. On new clause 12 and related consequential amendments, it was always the policy intention for the enforcement of digital imprints to broadly mirror the enforcement of the print regime. Since introduction, we have identified that, although certain types of material were already included in the provisions for unpaid material, it was not sufficiently clear that they were captured in the provisions for paid-for materials and, as drafted, would not fall to be enforced by the Electoral Commission.

The amendments will ensure that the enforcement responsibilities of the police and the Electoral Commission can be correctly assigned and are consistent across all material. That will enable the commission, in practice, to enforce material about registered parties and referendums, as well as material about categories of candidates, future candidates and holders of elected office. That is broadly in line with the existing split of responsibilities between the enforcement authorities in the print regime. There may be a degree of overlap between material about categories of candidates, future candidates and holders of elected office, and material that is about more than one particular candidate, future candidate or holder of elected office. In these instances, it is for the authorities to establish, based on the particular facts, where the enforcement responsibility lies.

These amendments will make the provisions easier for campaigners to understand and for the authorities to enforce, while delivering a regime that provides transparency for voters across a wide range of campaigning material. The amendments will also clarify that no electronic campaigning material, be it paid or unpaid, needs to make express mention of the candidate, party, future candidate, elected office holder or outcome of the referendum it relates to in order to be in scope of the regime. By clarifying that, the amendments will remove any uncertainty.

The remaining Government amendments to the digital imprints clauses are, again, small technical clarifications. Amendment 20 amends the definitions of candidates, future candidates and elected office holders so as to include those of municipal elections in the City of London, ensuring that a consistent approach is applied to the transparency of unpaid electronic and printed campaign material.

Amendment 25 simply clarifies that the imprint rules will apply only to unpaid material wholly or mainly related to referendums when published during the referendum period. That ensures that the regime takes a proportionate approach, providing transparency around material when it is most likely to be shared and therefore influence the outcome of a referendum.

Finally, I will turn to the last set of amendments relating to the measures in the Bill on the Electoral Commission. Amendments 13 to 15 seek to future-proof the appointment mechanism of Ministers to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. As currently drafted, clause 15 enables a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities for the constitution appointed by the Prime Minister to deputise for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, following the Transfer of Functions (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) Order 2021. Several transfer of functions orders have been needed over recent years to ensure appropriate Government membership of the Speaker’s committee. It is an unnecessarily burdensome process that could be avoided by future-proofing these provisions against future machinery of government changes or changes in ministerial responsibilities.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does this slew of technical amendments relating to machinery of government changes reflect the increasingly kleptocratic and nepotistic nature of this Government? Subject portfolios are handed to Ministers largely on the basis of who they are, rather than on the good functioning of government. Can the Minister give us an example of any other Government anywhere in the world under which elections and the constitution are managed by the same Department as housing policy?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I think the hon. Gentleman may be confused as to the reasons why we are making this change. We have had several transfer of functions orders to ensure that we minimise disruption due to the wording around the membership of the Speaker’s committee.

We propose to amend clause 15 so that the Minister of the Crown appointed to exercise concurrent membership of the Speaker’s committee with the Secretary of State does not have to have specific responsibilities in relation to the constitution, or any other portfolio, in order to be appointable. These amendments will not amend the overall Government membership of the committee because, as is currently the case, the Secretary of State and the Minister would not be able to attend committee meetings jointly and deputisation would not be available to the other Government member of the Speaker’s committee.

Additionally, amendments have been tabled to update the Bill to reflect the recent machinery of government change. On 8 December, elections policy was formally transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Some provisions in parts 5, 6 and 7, and in certain schedules to the Bill, currently refer to “the Minister”. That is defined in clause 60 as meaning the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In order to bring the Bill into line with the new allocation of responsibilities within Government, these amendments replace those references so that they refer only to the Secretary of State. I urge the House to support these practical amendments.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. I am taking on this role partway through matters, but fortunately I stand on the shoulders of outstanding colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who did a tremendous job and will no doubt continue to do so. Having read the Official Report of the Committee stage, I suspect that the Minister is rather relieved to face off with me rather than my hon. Friend—although she is in her place, so perhaps it is a two-for-one proposition.

Although the personnel may have changed, the fundamentals have not. This is a bad Bill. It is full of solutions in search of problems. Rather than opening up our democracy to greater participation, it will do the opposite, all the while further weakening our democracy to dodgy finance. It is conventional to call it Trumpian, but it is not even that. It is the sort of partial nonsense that can be seen in US statehouses: partisan leaders who just cannot help themselves, gerrymandering and seeking to tilt election outcomes by putting their thumb on the scale. Do not take my word for it, Minister; the Government should have heeded the calls from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its excellent report, when it said that the Bill ought to be paused.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on the work she has done, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on his eloquent presentation. I serve on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have urged the House to pause the Bill and not go forward. I too am offended by the limited amount of time that we have been given this evening. The reason we said that is that with constitutional changes such as these, we need to build confidence. The way to do that in the parliamentary process is to have a draft Bill, a Joint Committee and adequate debate before bringing the legislation back here. We took evidence from a whole range of people, and we found no one who supported the Bill being developed at this pace. Helen Mountfield QC said that we risked the allegation that this was being done for political advantage. I regret that.

I want to deal briefly with the voter ID issue. Personation was the issue that was presented to us, but we found limited evidence of that. Also, the pilots were limited. We had one big pilot, though, and it was in Northern Ireland, where 2.3% of the electorate dropped out. If we extrapolate that to our electorate here, that would mean over 1 million people dropping out. Who would that be, most of all? It would be elderly and disabled people, those in residential homes, and members of the BAME and LGBTQ communities.

The reality is that this Bill is being pushed through. Unfortunately, I believe that it is part of a process of voter suppression and that the Conservatives are learning lessons from America. What I fear most of all is the interference in the Electoral Commission, because that presages the Government coming back with more that will undermine our democracy. I believe that would be a stain on this House.

[Kemi Badenoch]

With the leave of the House, I would like to address some of the points that were raised during the debate. I am afraid that I will not be able to speak to all the amendments. I have to say that I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Opposition remain unable to see the necessity of this simple and proportionate protection for the integrity of our ballot. The fact is that voter ID is supported by the Electoral Commission. It is backed by international election observers who have repeatedly called for the introduction, saying that its absence is a security risk. It is long-established in liberal democracies across the world and is already in place in Northern Ireland.

The Opposition have suggested that specific groups, such as young people or ethnic minorities, would automatically be unwilling or unable to access the freely available voter card. These suggestions are based solely on assumptions about implementation—assumptions that are incorrect and harmful. I will be unambiguous in setting this out. Anyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. The voter identification policy proposals have been informed by a significant amount of research. I reject the points made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That is not the research that has been carried out by the Cabinet Office, which is quite robust. A significant amount of work has been done with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for her point about the length of election campaigns. She will know that I have looked into this issue, but I am afraid that I have not been able to find the perfect solution for her within the Bill. I acknowledge many of the points that she has made about lengthy campaigns, but I draw her attention to the argument made by the Association of Electoral Administrators in its written evidence to the Joint Committee about the risk of disenfranchising potential electors were the period to be shortened.

I shall also respond to some of the questions from the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on joint campaigning. The measures are simply intended to strengthen the principle of spending limits already in law. They protect the level playing field by ensuring that groups cannot unfairly expand their spending limits when they are conducting a joint campaign. It is logical to extend this principle to political parties and third-party campaigners who work together. All registered political parties and third-party campaigners will be able to continue to campaign as they do now, but they will have to account for any spending that is part of a joint campaign in which they are involved. She also asked specifically about groups such as Operation Black Vote, which is simply campaigning to encourage people to vote. It will not be caught by those new rules as it would not qualify as regulated election campaign expenditure.

There were several issues raised by hon. Members on candidates’ home addresses. I have noted the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) raised about the current provisions. However, any further amendments in this space, although they may seem straightforward at first sight, would entail challenges for consistency in the rules that need to apply equally across differing areas of the country and that require careful and comprehensive consideration. The drafting of the proposed amendment, if accepted, would work well for candidates in rural areas, but it may lead to a less consistent approach for those in cities or remote locations. However, I am grateful that he says this is a probing amendment. I will ask my officials to explore these important issues and remain open to further conversations about how we can improve the current system.

I turn now to new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), which deals with dual registration. I thank him very much for the points that he raised. He is right that voting twice in an election to the same body is a violation of the principle of one person, one vote. It is an offence that already carries a considerable penalty. I share the desire to take action to reduce the risk of this happening, but I do not think that the new clause would achieve that aim. It would be costly and impractical to implement at this time. I am sympathetic to the broad intention of the new clause, which is in line with the Government’s commitment to strengthening security and reducing the opportunity for fraud. This is also similar to new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I understand the points that she raised. We do not think that the amendment is appropriate, for similar reasons, but I am open to further conversations.

I recognise many good points raised by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), saying that we could have gone further. I am sure that this is not the end of looking at electoral integrity. We will continue to see how the franchise can be strengthened. I urge Members not to support the Opposition amendments. I hope the Government amendments will be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Purposes referred to in section 39

“(1) This section sets out the purposes referred to in section 39.

(2) The first purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—

(a) a registered party,

(b) registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or

(c) candidates or future candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates or future candidates.

(3) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (2), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any party, candidate or future candidate.

(4) The second purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from a particular candidate or particular future candidate.

(5) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (4), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any candidate or future candidate.

(6) The third purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from an elected office-holder.

(7) The fourth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from elected office-holders who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of elected office-holders.

(8) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (6) or (7), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any elected office-holder.

(9) The fifth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—

(a) the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom or any area in the United Kingdom, or

(b) a particular outcome of such a referendum.

(10) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (9)(b), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention a particular outcome of a referendum.

(11) In this section “referendum” does not include a poll held under section 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”—(Kemi Badenoch.)

This new clause and Amendments 22 and 23 replace the purposes set out in clause 39(3) as the purposes intended to be achieved by paid-for electronic material in order for Part 6 to apply to the material. In particular the New Clause makes it clear that this covers material in support of categories of parties, candidates and elected office-holders and applies whether or not the material expressly names the party etc.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank all Members across the House who have engaged in debating the substance of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today. I also thank my officials for their hard work in getting me up to speed so quickly on the policy, after I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I wish to thank my Conservative colleagues for their thoughtful, informed contributions and support for these important measures—in particular, the members of the Bill Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for their careful consideration of so many Report stage amendments.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the former shadow Secretary of State for young people and democracy, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), together with the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). While we may not always have agreed on the policy, I welcome their engagement and indeed the challenge on a number of the provisions. Scrutiny in this place is designed to enhance the quality of our legislation, and indeed on a number of points I did ask my team to consider where we might want to think further on the details.

As always, it is a pleasure to engage in reasoned and informed debate on all matters relating to the integrity of our elections. I know that all of us on both sides of the House share the common desire to keep our elections secure, fair, transparent and up to date so that our democracy can continue to thrive. Fundamentally, that is what the Bill is about. It 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 their vote is theirs and theirs alone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I have listened to my hon. Friend, so I would rather not.

The measure, in my view, only undermines the primary aim of this Bill, which is to protect children. I was on the Committee for a Labour Government Bill in 2003 that brought this through, and we went backwards and forwards on this issue. Ultimately, I supported it then, and I do so now. This is a uniquely important issue, and I do not believe that it should be conflated with broader arguments over what should or should not disqualify an individual from participating in local government, as, regrettably, these new clauses do.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for taking the time to engage with the legislation. I know that he is keen to ensure that Ministers have thought things through, and I am impressed that he has actually gone through the consultation document from 2018. I disagree with his amendments and I hope that I can convince him from the Dispatch Box that we are doing the right thing. I also wish to put it on record that I disagree with the rather unpleasant accusation that the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made from the Labour Front Bench.

New clauses 1 and 2 would have the effect of creating a new form of permanent disqualification criteria for individuals convicted of a narrow group of offences under section 5 or section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are a number of reasons why the Government are resisting these new clauses. The first is the fact that they propose that the disqualification would be permanent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has said, this runs counter to the principle and expectation that underpins our justice system that offenders serve their time and are then rehabilitated into society. It would have the effect of creating a permanent bar to individuals contributing to public life in their local communities for this limited category of offences. So, singling out this narrow group of drink and drug offences for permanent disqualification is disproportionate.

Secondly, the Bill legislates to capture not only local councillors but mayors and London Assembly members. However, my hon. Friend’s new clauses apply only to local councillors. Thirdly, serious drink or drug-driving offences are already covered by the existing local government disqualification criteria, which bars anyone from standing or holding public office in local government for five years if they have had a custodial sentence of three months or more.

Amendments that create new, punitive measures to permanently disqualify those receiving a conviction for certain limited drink or drug-driving offences or controlled drug offences are really not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill specifically seeks to update disqualification criteria in line with modern sentencing measures available for registered sex offenders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said, these amendments would permanently bar, for example, an individual from standing for local office if, perhaps, at 18 they had had a glass of wine too many and were convicted of being slightly over the limit. Forty years later, they would still be unable to stand, which is a bit draconian.

The Bill is appropriately comprehensive, as it catches all those individuals subject to notification requirements for sexual offences but not subject to custodial sentences. The core purpose of this legislation is to prevent those convicted of sexual offences from having a role as a local elected official that could include access to children and vulnerable adults, and the length of their disqualification would be the length of time that they are subject to the notification requirement.

We also resist new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has identified that we did consult on disqualifying individuals who had been issued with antisocial behaviour injunctions in 2017, and the original consultation was focused in scope. This Bill does not include civil injunctions, on the basis that they represent only a partial selection of the injunctions and behaviour orders available to the courts. The Government support this Bill because, as I said earlier, we are legislating comprehensively to disqualify individuals convicted of sexual offences from local office. This Bill responds to calls for changes to the law to disqualify sex offenders who are not given a custodial sentence but refuse to stand down, so we want to bring the disqualification criteria for councillors in line with the modern sentencing practice. The current criteria require updating to reflect changes to the law: the courts have tools that they did not have previously, and the disqualification criteria must reflect that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. New clause 3 may have been supported by the Chancellor in his foreword when he was serving in this role, but he is not the Bill Minister—I am—and I believe that Bills such as this should be specific, targeted and focused. This private Member’s Bill focuses on addressing those concerns raised by specific cases where councillors made subject to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders did not resign. Those cases highlighted the fact that those registered sex offenders pose great concern to our communities.

I will now move on to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, which all amend clause 1, and which we resist for the following reasons. Amendments 1 and 4 would selectively remove parish councils from the list of local authorities subject to the new disqualification criteria. This would be a significant and troubling reduction of the purpose, intent, and comprehensiveness of the Bill. Parish councils are already subject to the existing disqualification criteria, and rightly so, as there are 10,000 parish councils and approximately 100,000 parish councillors in England. It is vital that the large number of individuals who hold this important position—the grassroots of our democracy—are also subject to the new disqualification criteria introduced by the Bill. People must be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent them at all tiers of local government are of good character and beyond reproach.

Amendments 2 and 3 would exclude sexual risk orders from the updated disqualification criteria for members of local authorities in England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has helpfully pointed out, the Government did consult on the inclusion of sexual risk orders in 2017, and we committed to legislate to disqualify persons subject to such orders from holding local office. Individuals are subject to sexual risk orders because they are found by a court to pose a serious risk of harm to the public in the UK and/or children and vulnerable adults abroad. When issuing a sexual risk order, the court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary to protect the public, or children and vulnerable adults, from sexual harm, and the Government believe it is right that anyone subject to a sexual risk order should be barred from standing for election or holding office as a member of a local authority.

My hon. Friend asked why we changed our mind—why this Bill covers more than the sex offenders register. I should clarify that the 2017 consultation responses regarding the matter of sexual risk orders were mixed: some 39% of respondents were in favour of prohibition, and 45% were against. However, my hon. Friend is not correct to say that the Government have changed their mind regarding the inclusion of sexual risk orders in this Bill. In our response to the consultation, we stated that having considered the responses we received, the Government believe that where an individual is subject to a sexual risk order, they should be prohibited from standing for election. This Bill delivers on that commitment.

My hon. Friend also asked about enforcement—how local authorities will know that a councillor is on the register or has received an order for a sexual offence. A candidate must declare anything that might disqualify them from standing for, or holding, local office. Not doing so is a criminal offence, and this Bill will update those disqualification criteria and therefore ensure they are captured by this requirement.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does that provision apply to people who stand as police and crime commissioners but already have a conviction that should have disqualified them? Does it mean that the gentleman who was elected in Wiltshire as a police and crime commissioner is now the subject of criminal proceedings?

[Kemi Badenoch]

This is not retrospective, so it will apply from now onwards. I hope that is helpful.

I hope I have been able to convince my hon. Friend not to press his amendments. They are not trivial, but this Bill is not the right place for them.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This has been a useful debate. When we hear from the Minister that the Bill will apply to 100,000 councillors, one can see that this is an issue of significance. As always, she delivered a charming and, dare I say, almost seductive response. She referred to the importance of having people in local government who are of good character and beyond reproach. All three of my new clauses are designed to build on that.

As has happened over many years, the Government have managed to find a technical defect in my new clauses that does not alter their substance but makes the Government able to say that they do not agree with them. My new clauses, if they were accepted, would be subject to the transitional provisions set out in clause 5. For drafting purposes, I did not go into a lot of detail, but the essence is that there should be transitional arrangements so that the new clauses would not disqualify people who were convicted before the Bill became law.

The intention of these new clauses is that they should fit into a Bill that already ensures there is no retrospective provision. That technically affects all the new clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, but the substance is whether the Government believe that somebody who has committed an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act should or should not be disqualified from serving as a councillor, bearing in mind the importance given to the “From harm to hope” White Paper and bearing in mind recreational drug use.

We are even told that recreational drug use may be taking place within the Palace of Westminster. What a bad example that would be, as it would be if recreational drugs were being used in our town halls up and down the country, when the Government and, I think, the people are committed to trying to eliminate the scourge of illegal drug use and all the harm that comes from it. If we are serious about cutting crime and saving lives through the “From harm to hope” White Paper, do the Government intend to include consequences in legislation for those who are convicted?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am not a Home Office Minister, so I cannot speak to that Department’s policy. He might find it interesting that the Government have an outstanding response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the very things he is talking about in relation to local government and local councillors, and that might be a better place for us to address these points. We are thinking about these issues, but perhaps not in the fora he expects.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That was a helpful and constructive contribution. I look forward to seeing the Government’s response in due course, but I am delighted to hear that they are working on the issue.

I do not know whether I should disclose this, but I recall sitting in the Members’ Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and discussing whether or not I would go on to the Committee, because he was desperate for someone to do so. I said that I would be happy to go on to the Committee, but in the end I was not selected to do so. That is an issue between us, but as it seems to be the subject of a point, I thought I should correct the record.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on his outstanding work in progressing the Bill. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for the legislation.

The Government are backing this private Member’s Bill because it addresses a critical issue pertaining to people’s faith in their elected representatives and in local democracy. It is an issue that affects communities the length and breadth of the country. It will serve to prevent registered sex offenders from standing or serving as councillors, mayors or London Assembly members.

I am grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench team for supporting this important Bill. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), all councillors or former councillors, for their thoughtful contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who was on the London Assembly with me when I was deputy leader and he was leader. I am pleased that he and I continue to work together in this place.

To answer some of the questions, I am grateful for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) about working with the devolved Administrations. He will know that the Secretary of State is the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. I am sure that if my hon. Friend wrote to the Secretary of State formally with a request, it is something that the Department could look at.

More broadly on how the devolved nations are taking corresponding provisions forward—this was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington—Wales has already implemented similar provisions via the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, and Government officials have been in contact with Scottish counterparts. It is entirely within the remit of the Scottish Parliament to make corresponding provisions, but my officials stand ready to assist in any way possible. For those who want to know, the Northern Ireland Executive could make corresponding provision regarding sitting councillors, but the UK Government retain responsibility for elections in Northern Ireland. We will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to seek to extend these measures to Northern Ireland in a comprehensive package addressing both candidates and sitting councillors.

There was a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about MPs and police and crime commissioners. The answer is that standards and conduct for MPs and police and crime commissioners are governed under separate regimes with their own mechanisms to disqualify or sanction against unacceptable behaviour. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on Report, this Bill is very specific and focused, and that is why we have not included other measures; we would not necessarily even have been able to do so.

Local councillors are part of the democratic fabric of this country. Throughout the pandemic, we all bore witness to the critical role of local authorities in supporting our communities and the most vulnerable in society. It is hard to imagine a time when local government has mattered more, or indeed when people’s faith and trust in it has mattered as much as it does today. People must be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent them are of good character, deserving of trust and beyond reproach. Mayors and councillors are responsible for the delivery of vital services, including for children and vulnerable adults, and they are empowered to make decisions on a whole range of issues that people care deeply about. Good character in the people making these decisions should be the minimum expectation.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of councillors and mayors are driven by a deep sense of public duty, as we have seen from those of them who have come to this place, and they deserve respect and praise for the excellent job that they do. Perhaps inevitably when there are 120,000 councillors serving all tiers of local government in England, however, there are rare occasions when the behaviour of individuals falls below the standards that the public rightly expect.

Currently, anyone who is convicted and given a custodial sentence of three months or more, suspended or not, is disqualified from local government for five years. These rules date to the Local Government Act 1972. While the existing law may have been effective in addressing serious cases of criminal behaviour, it does not take account of the non-custodial sentences that courts now issue for sexual offences. Those concern individuals who are on the sex offenders register and are subject to the notification requirements to manage sex offender behaviour, because they pose a risk to children and all vulnerable adults.

This Bill is important because it will bring the current disqualification criteria for local authorities in line with modern sentencing practices. Clearly, no community should have to tolerate a convicted sex offender standing or continuing to serve as their local representative. This update to the law governing who can stand as a fit and proper person to represent their community is long overdue and will serve to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, while upholding the high standards expected of locally elected officials.

Finally, may I take this opportunity to say that it has been a great pleasure to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley in taking this much-needed step towards updating the local government disqualification criteria. I look forward to the Bill’s successful passage through the Lords.