Protecting the Integrity of our Elections

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to update Parliament today on amendments the Government will shortly be bringing forward to the Elections Bill which will help to ensure we fully deliver on our commitment to protecting our democracy.

The changes brought forward by the Bill are vital to ensure our democracy remains secure, fair, modern and transparent and I am therefore pleased to also update Parliament today with further information on their implementation. It is our expectation that all the measures will be in place within the lifetime of this Parliament and implementation will be staged over a sensible and pragmatic timetable; it is imperative that this is done properly and with sufficient time for the elections sector and voters to prepare for the new requirements.

Voter identification and the Voter Card

I am today publishing a policy statement, “Protecting the integrity of our elections: voter identification at polling stations and the new Voter Card”, which sets out more detail on the Government’s proposals for the voter identification policy.

The statement includes details of the rationale for the list of accepted photographic identifications in the Elections Bill and further information around our plans for the application process for voter cards.

A voter card will be available free of charge to ensure that all electors have access to an accepted form of identification. The Government are clear that the process for applying for this card must be accessible for all those who need it. There will therefore be a range of application routes, voter cards will be valid across all of Great Britain— not just in the issuing area—and the Government will shortly be tabling amendments to adjust some of the current drafting of the Bill to increase the accessibility and security of the voter card and ensure the voter card system works for all eligible voters.

Voters in Northern Ireland have been required to show identification when voting at polling stations since 1985, and the photographic voter identification system has been in place there for almost 20 years since it was brought in by the last Labour Government in 2003. Since its introduction, this requirement has successfully helped to tackle electoral fraud and has been operating with ease. In their 2021 public opinion tracker, the Electoral Commission recorded not a single Northern Ireland respondent reporting “I don’t have any identification/I would not be able to vote”.

It is our expectation that voter identification will be in place in Great Britain in time for polls taking place in spring 2023, with the voter card system in operation in good time ahead of this.

Absent Vote Applications

The Government will be introducing a further amendment to the Bill to require identity verification for absent vote applications, as is already the case for Northern Ireland. This will ensure that applications are legitimate, protecting the system from fraud.

A further amendment will provide for an online absent vote application service, making this process more efficient for both citizens and electoral administrators and placing both integrity and elector participation at the heart of our democracy. The new online application service, as well as existing paper applications, will require electors to have their identity verified as part of the process, ensuring that the system is as streamlined as possible for users. As we legislate to update our electoral system we are therefore also ensuring public confidence that our elections will remain secure well into the future.

In order to ensure efficiency of electoral administrative processes, it is our ambition to align the new online application process with other changes to absent vote arrangements and the delivery of overseas electors’ voting rights. Rollout of the online service will be conditional on the identity verification processes being in place and the timing of rollout in Northern Ireland will be dependent on meeting the particular safeguards required in Northern Ireland. This is in order to reduce any opportunity for individuals to exploit the processes and steal votes.

Technical amendments to the Elections Bill

The Bill will be amended to reflect that responsibility for elections has moved from the Cabinet Office to the new Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. In addition, an amendment will be made to provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 regarding membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, to allow for the most relevant Minister to be appointed by the Prime Minister to be able to deputise for the Secretary of State on the Committee as and when needed. These changes will not increase the Government’s allocated representation on the Committee.

Several amendments will also be made to the clauses in the Bill relating to the new digital imprints regime. These amendments include clarifying the enforcement responsibilities of the Electoral Commission and the police, and improving consistency between the clauses that relate to “paid material” and those that relate to “other electronic material” (or unpaid material). They will also clarify that the imprint rules will apply only to unpaid electronic material wholly or mainly related to referendums, when published during the referendum period. Further, these amendments will ensure that the regime covers all relevant elections, including all City of London elections. These amendments will help ensure transparency and empower voters to make informed decisions about the material they see online.

The associated document has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and amendments to the Elections Bill will be tabled in due course.

[HCWS525]

Covid-19 Health Disparities

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2021 Written Statements

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

I am publishing today my final report on progress to address covid-19 health disparities among ethnic minority groups.

When the Prime Minister asked me to lead this work in June 2020, we knew that ethnic minorities were more likely to become infected and to die from covid-19 but we did not know why. Thanks to analysis from the Government’s race disparity unit and new research backed by over £7 million in Government funding, we now have a much better understanding of the factors that have driven the higher infection and mortality rates among ethnic minority groups. These include occupation, living with children in multigenerational households, and living in densely-populated urban areas with poor air quality and higher levels of deprivation.

We also know that once a person is infected, older age, male sex, and having a disability or a pre-existing health condition (such as diabetes) increase the risk of them dying from covid-19. Genetics may also play a role in survival rates from covid-19. 61% of south Asian people carry a gene which doubles the risk of respiratory failure and death from covid-19 in under-60-year-olds, compared with 16% of people of European ancestry.

These insights have been crucial in shaping our response to covid-19.

Early action, informed by the emerging data and scientific advice, focused on reducing the risk of infection and protecting key frontline workers who were most at risk, particularly our NHS workers. Our approach evolved as our understanding of the risk factors developed. For example, in the second wave of the pandemic, we published guidance on preventing household transmission, recognising that people from the Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic groups faced a higher risk of dying from covid-19 and are more likely to live in multigenerational households. We also piloted approaches where families could get jabbed together at vaccine sites to promote uptake in these groups.

The most significant measure to protect ethnic minorities from the risk of covid-19 has been the vaccination programme. We led the way in terms of the scale of our programme to approve, procure and deploy the covid-19 vaccines. The largest mass-vaccination programme in British history has been delivered through an unprecedented partnership approach between citizens, national and local government, health agencies, and the voluntary and community sector. This has involved tackling misinformation and building trust with ethnic minority groups through measures such as housing vaccination centres in places of worship and providing over £23 million in funding to the community champion scheme, which has used trusted local voices to drive up vaccination rates. These learnings are informing our approach to the current roll-out of the booster programme to ensure we continue to drive up vaccination rates in ethnic minority groups.

Through these combined efforts we have seen increases in both positive vaccine sentiment and vaccine uptake across all ethnic groups since vaccine deployment began.

There are a number of wider public health lessons that we must learn from these experiences and these are reflected in the recommendations in my report, which the Prime Minister has accepted in full. These recommendations will still be applicable even as we see the emergence of new variants. Work on addressing covid-19 disparities will now be taken forward by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities as part of our longer-term strategy to tackle health disparities.

[HCWS441]

Slough Borough Council

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Written Statements

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

On 25 October 2021, I announced to the House that the Secretary of State was minded to intervene at Slough Borough Council (“the Authority”) and to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with financial management and governance, oversight of the collection of revenues and distribution of benefits, and non-executive functions relating to the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers.

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

These proposals followed the publication of an external assurance review, led by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Jim Taylor, the former chief executive of Salford City Council, Trafford Council and Rochdale Borough Council. The review showed that the Authority had failed in its best value duty. This is a requirement set out in the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, the review showed that the financial challenge was acute, and that the Authority could not become financially sustainable without Government support.

The governance element of the review identified poor practices which had dated as far back as 2011, but which were still occurring today; the council was unable to resolve such difficulties on its own (p.29). The council had the third highest level of borrowing per head for councils in England, but there was little evidence of any concerted, strategic, or commercial plan of investment; there was little evidence that the council understood the financial implications and risks of such borrowing (p.21).

Financial government was poor; the council was not equipped to undertake pre-decision scrutiny; its budget lacked clear business cases setting out how its planned savings could be delivered (p.17). There was no significant corporate ownership or understanding of finance; if the senior council senior team and senior members had acted more rigorously, the current financial impact on the council could have been mitigated (p.18).

As part of my announcement in October, I invited the Authority to make representations about my proposals to formally intervene on or before 5 November 2021. The Authority, its Conservative councillor group, an independent councillor and seven residents made representations. All representations supported the intervention and the proposal to appoint commissioners. The Authority accepted the findings of the external assurance review, stated that it looked forward to working with commissioners, and in relation to elections, confirmed that it had established a cross-party working group and planned a consultation. The Conservative group and the independent councillor pledged to work with the commissioners. Residents were universally supportive of the intervention and keen to see real improvement in the Authority’s services.

Best value intervention in Slough Borough Council

Following consideration of these representations, the Secretary of State has decided to proceed with the proposals announced on 25 October.

The Secretary of State is mindful that the lessons from past interventions suggest that once commissioners are in post, additional issues can arise. He is therefore directing the Authority to undertake an assessment of the functional capability of all service areas within the next three months, to identify any gaps in capacity and capability, and may expand the scope of the intervention if necessary.

Appointing Commissioners for Slough Borough Council

The Secretary of State has decided to appoint two commissioners with a proven record of leadership and transformation, strong financial management and governance, and the specific expertise that will be relevant to their functions.

Max Caller CBE (Lead Commissioner)—Max led the best value inspections at Northamptonshire and Liverpool and was a commissioner at Tower Hamlets. Max is a former chief executive of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Barnet and former chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Margaret Lee (Finance Commissioner)—Margaret recently retired from Essex County Council where she held senior finance roles, including the statutory finance officer, and is a member of the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel.

The commissioners have been appointed for three years from 1 December 2021 to 30 November 2024, or such earlier or later time as we determine. We are clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary.

The commissioners will be asked to provide their first report within the next three months, with their initial views and an assessment of whether they require further support. If further appointments are necessary, we hope to reflect the diversity of Slough’s population. Further reports will be provided every six months, or as agreed with the commissioners.

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

Commissioners will work collaboratively with the Children’s Services Commissioner, Trevor Doughty, to make sure that these vital services continue to be delivered effectively and efficiently in line with the Authority’s statutory duties. The Children’s Services Commissioner will continue to support the Slough Children First company and Slough Borough Council on its important work to continue to improve children’s social care services, which are no longer rated “inadequate”. He will also work with the council to explore the ideal future scope of services to be delivered by the company, including the recommendation on this in Jim Taylor’s report.

Following the recent Ofsted-Care Quality Commission inspection of local services for children and young people with special educational needs and or disabilities (SEND), the local area must now prepare a written statement of action setting out how it will improve these services. The Department for Education is supporting the council in this important task, and is considering how to engage and work with the commissioner team to ensure this work is also prioritised.

I am also asking the commissioners to support the Authority in relation to the negotiations with the Department for Education on the safety valve intervention programme. The Authority will participate in the programme given the size of its dedicated schools grant deficit. The programme requires collaboration across education and finance leadership for the long-term benefit of children and young people with high needs.

As with other interventions led by my Department, the Authority will be directed to meet the costs of the commissioners. The Government have reviewed the level of fees paid to commissioners appointed using powers in the Local Government Act 1999 and have determined that they should be uplifted. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on www.gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention. Given the importance of these roles, my Department will also move to a new annual open recruitment process to identify potential candidates for future commissioner appointments and other non-statutory improvement roles. Further information on this process will be published in due course.

Future of Slough Borough Council

Since the publication of the external assurance review the Authority have updated their financial position. The situation is unprecedented. Commissioners will play an important role in informing Ministers’ response to the situation in Slough, including the council’s request for exceptional financial support, and what the right medium-term plan might be for Slough, given the scale of the financial and wider challenges facing the council.

Conclusion

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

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

[HCWS435]

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I shall be briefer than I think I have ever been in Parliament and simply say that I and the Labour party fully endorse the Bill, and we congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley on his efforts in bringing it forward. In my view, it is important that this change is made in relation to all representatives, but with a special focus on those who act as corporate parents. The Labour party supports the Bill.

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

I have a very long speech that I am keen for all members of the Committee to go through with me over the next 25 minutes.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for picking up this private Member’s Bill and helping us to close this loophole. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with him in progressing the Bill to Committee stage, and I look forward to supporting it over the upcoming legislative hurdles, of which no doubt there will be very few for what is a common-sense and necessary measure for the statute book.

It is clear that people must be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent them are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. Mayors and local councillors are responsible for the delivery of vital services, including for children and vulnerable adults, and good character in the people making decisions about such services 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, and they deserve our respect for the excellent job they do. However, perhaps inevitably when there are 120,000 councillors serving all tiers of local government in England, there are rare occasions when the behaviour of individuals falls below the standards that the public rightly expect.

Two such cases have shone a sharp light on the need for reform, including a particularly notorious incidence that involved a parish councillor downloading indecent images of children soon after their election to public office. Despite being placed on the sex offenders register, this individual refused to do the decent thing by stepping down and he then went on to serve his full term. This intolerable situation was made possible by our current legislation on disqualification not having kept pace with our sentencing regime, as our rules disqualified someone only if they received a custodial sentence of three months or more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has already described the clauses that are to stand part of the Bill, so I will not repeat them, but it is important to mention the devolved Administrations, as they are not represented in the room. There is a commitment to support Northern Ireland implementation, and clause 6 sets out that the Act will come into force two months after the day on which it is passed. The clause also confirms that the provisions apply to England only.

Local government functions are devolved, which means the Bill is specifically for England. That being said, the Welsh Government have recently legislated on the matter and the Scottish Parliament may wish to make corresponding provision, because the UK Government, unlike in the devolved nations, retains general responsibility for local government elections. The Government will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to seek to extend these measures to Northern Ireland in a comprehensive package, addressing candidates and sitting councillors.

This Government believe that it is absolutely right for councillors, Mayors and members of the Greater London Assembly to face consequences if they fall short of the behaviour we all expect in an inclusive and tolerant society. This private Member’s Bill will help us uphold standards in public life and deliver on our commitment to legislate on this issue. Updates to the disqualification criteria are timely and, many would say, long overdue, and I am pleased to commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I am delighted but not surprised that there is general support. I am conscious that Members want to get out of here, so I will be very quick. Before you put the question, Dr Huq, I wish to thank you and all who have attended, having been dragged out of the coffee room. I ask the Minister to convey my thanks to her officials who put the Bill together, because it is much more complicated than it looks—I remember struggling with local government legislation when I was a local government Minister. I thank those who have spoken for being succinct, and I also thank those who did not speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

International Men’s Day

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate and for his ongoing work to ensure that the issues faced by men and boys are not neglected. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys, he headed up the publication of the report “A Boy Today”, which is essential reading on the barriers that many boys and men face in today’s society. I thank him and all the members of the APPG for their work, and all those who contributed to that valuable report.

We are now in the seventh year of marking this day with a debate, illustrating the importance of the event to all of us here. The issue, of course, is not just important in this House. Over 400 organisations across the UK are taking part this year; I think that “Loose Women” even became “Loose Men”, if only for one day. My hon. Friend should know that these swapsies happen across the board.

I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate for their thoughtful contributions to it and the shadow Minister in particular for the spirit in which she made her remarks. We have highlighted the wide-ranging areas on which we need to continue to make progress if we are to achieve equality for everyone—the areas on which we agree and those on which we disagree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley spoke movingly about the issues that men and boys face. I would like him to know that I agree with him that we must not pathologise masculinity or any other protected characteristic. Men and women are not in competition with each other, and our vision of equality is one where both sexes thrive and succeed, rather than one succeeding at the expense of the other.

If hon. Members will indulge me, I will talk a bit about covid because I have spent quite a lot of the last two years working on it. This year has been another dominated by covid, which has had a huge impact on us all. We know that the health and economic impacts of the pandemic have not been felt equally by everyone. Being male is the single biggest risk factor for covid after age, and men have seen higher redundancy rates over the course of the pandemic than women.

However, men are not one homogenous group with one shared experience, and it would be ridiculous to treat them as if they were. That is why we have focused our efforts on ensuring that support gets to those who need it most. We will continue to do that as the successful roll-out of the vaccine and booster shots progresses.

We are also determined to ensure that covid does not have a lasting impact on children’s education. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned educational catch-up; no doubt she will be pleased to know that we have set up the national tutoring programme to help schools access targeted support for those hit hardest by the disruption. Over the next three years, we expect that programme to deliver 90 million hours of tuition across the country, which will particularly benefit those in more deprived areas—including white working-class boys, who I know are of concern to Members from all parties in this House, as evidenced by the recent Education Committee report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) mentioned that one in 10 fathers suffers from mental health issues. I send my condolences to him and to the family of his constituent, Elliot Taylor, following Elliot’s tragic death. We take mental health very seriously. The challenges that we have faced over the past year have shown the importance of taking care of our mental health and that of those around us. We know the value of asking for help when we need it. Sadly, we also know that some men are more reluctant than others to ask for help.

The Government’s national suicide prevention strategy highlights men, especially middle-aged and young men, as a group at high risk of suicide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned that the Government will invest an additional £57 million in suicide prevention by 2023-24 through the NHS long-term plan, which includes funding to reduce male suicide. She will be pleased to know that that is not all we are doing: we are also providing an extra £5 million for this financial year, specifically to support voluntary and community sector organisations working to prevent suicide. We have ensured that the suicide prevention funding for local areas is used to test different approaches to reaching and engaging men.

Despite all this work, we are not complacent. We must all do more to encourage men to seek help and ensure that we listen more closely to those who do. I urge any man who is struggling to speak to a GP to seek out mental health support delivered by charities or the NHS. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for highlighting the work of charities such as Men’s Sheds and Movember and the need to remove barriers that prevent men from seeking help. I am sure my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care will be happy to hear from her on more work that could be done in this space.

Several Members mentioned stereotypes and role models, and I agree with the arguments made. Not only can stereotypes prevent some people from seeking help when they need it, but they can also limit people’s aspirations in school. Capable young boys can be held back from reaching their potential. We see this, for example, when young men say they want to work in the care sector or with children, when too many people around them act surprised or laugh.

A 2017 report suggests that 46% of men aged 18 to 30 feel that society tells them it is not good for a boy to be taught how to cook, sew, clean the house or take care of children. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West made an excellent point about the stigma surrounding what men should be seen to be doing. We should all counter these messages when we see them, so that young men—as well as young women—can make the most of all the opportunities available.

This highlights the importance of role models. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley praised the organisation Lads need Dads, for example, and I pay tribute to their good work. Fortunately, there is no shortage of positive role models in public life, including those here today, as well as in business. However, these sectors have not always represented the full diversity of men in the country and I am pleased we are making progress so that young boys who may be LGBT, disabled or from working-class backgrounds can also see people who look and sound like them in public life. Aspirations should not be determined by who you are or where you live, but by your talents and abilities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke raised an important point about the Online Safety Bill and its role in tackling the promotion of sexual violence through pornography. We agree that the online world is a place where very harmful stereotypes are reinforced. I am certain that she will be working with the Government to help us tackle this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not here. I am afraid I did not tell him that I would mention him, but I suspect he would be very concerned if I did not mention the issue of family courts and parental alienation, which we have not touched on too much in this debate. He is right when he highlights that, unfortunately, not all families are happy ones, but a child’s welfare is best served by the continued involvement of both parents, provided that that involvement is safe.

We know that parents can face difficulties when attempting to spend time with their children after a separation. Sometimes that is because of the obstructive behaviour of the parent the child spends most of their time with. Family courts recognise the problems that such situations can cause, as does the draft statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which highlights parental alienation as an example of coercive and controlling behaviour for the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for his work on the issue, which will ensure that more children benefit from contact with both parents.

One of the themes for this year’s International Men’s Day celebrations is better relations between men and women. This reflects the Government’s equalities work. It is not about pitting one deserving group against another, but about ensuring that everyone is able to make the most of the opportunities offered in our country and gets the support they need to make their lives a success. That is why my combined Government responsibilities make so much sense together; as Minister for Levelling up, Communities and Equalities I can work to ensure that everyone can benefit as we build back better, wherever they are in the country and regardless of their sex, age or any other characteristic.

One particularly interesting part of the APPG report on men and boys is the focus on getting a better understanding of why they face specific barriers. This priority is shared by me and other equality Ministers. Our data and evidence-driven approach to equality ensures we consider sex alongside factors such as race, sexual orientation, geography and socioeconomic background, so we can be sure that we are levelling up right across the country. That approach helps to inform policy making across Government, so all my ministerial colleagues contribute to tackling the specific problems faced by men and boys.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) took an interesting approach to this debate. I tend to believe that on these occasions we highlight the positive more than the negative. I thought I might give an alternative view on some of the statements that he made. He said that it is men who are overwhelmingly responsible for the violence perpetrated against women, which is true. However, men are also overwhelmingly responsible for perpetrating violence against other men, the numbers of which are far greater. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said that this is not a zero-sum game. What we want to tackle is violence—whether violence against women and girls or violence generally. We highlight areas where we think there are particular problems, but a holistic approach is the best way to resolve the issue.

We can talk about identity in a way that is too negative, emphasises difference and builds walls between groups, rather than talking about equality and how we can bring people together to solve problems. Yesterday, I was in this Chamber to speak in the debate on Islamophobia Awareness Month. Members across the Chamber agreed that there is too much pathologising of identity, where people target Muslims as perpetrators of particular acts, which is very bad for the general population.

I do not believe that every man is a risk. There are some who have committed atrocious crimes, but I treat people as individuals. My experience—whether in my family, with my father, brother or son, or with my male hon. Friends in this House—has been overwhelmingly positive. As someone who is black, female and an immigrant, when I hear the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North say such things, I can tell he is saying them to sound positive; however, the way he makes those comments is not as constructive as the way Government Members make theirs. Their approach is the better way to resolve those issues. I am very happy to share more of my views on the topic outside of the debate.

It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to join the debate again this year and to celebrate the essential contribution that men and boys make in all our lives. I close by thanking all those who work in or raise money for organisations supporting men across the country —people such as Martin Seager, my constituent in Saffron Walden, whose work on male psychology is to be commended. By working together, we can make real progress on the important issues raised today.

Islamophobia Awareness Month

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on such a sensitive subject such as this, the highly partisan nature in which the debate has been opened, if watched by our Muslim constituents, will look not like people trying to tackle anti-Muslim hatred, but as if they, as a community, are being used as a political football for political goals?

[James Daly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I could mention all sorts of policies here, whether it is support for the self-employed, for taxi drivers or for anybody else in my constituency. I believe I should be working with other MPs in Greater Manchester for the greater good to support all our Muslim constituents through specific policies that address the issues that are at the heart of the challenges they face.

When you represent people who you know; when you have been part of a community; when you do everything you possibly can to represent people, to be their voice in Parliament and to address the issues—what more do Opposition Members expect? Prejudice is an issue that is addressed through the individual and through all of us behaving in a way where we welcome and take every opportunity to say that we value all our communities, and we especially value our Muslim community. We value every single person. Prejudice and racism are not addressed by a definition. They are addressed by an individual and by all of us coming together to make sure that people are not judged by anything other than their personality, their goodness, and their ability and desire to influence their community for the better.

I can tell everybody in this Chamber and elsewhere that my interaction with my communities is simply for that purpose. I am a politician who wants to make change and who wants to ensure that people are treated in an equal fashion. This Government’s levelling-up agenda is about equality of opportunity. Every single policy that we put in place is to ensure that that is the case and that people are not discriminated against on the basis of their background.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a very feisty debate, and it is quite clear that concerns about anti-Muslim hatred transcend party lines.

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for securing this debate. I say to him that I am not afraid of using the phrase “Islamophobia”. We are not going to have a semantic argument, but there are good reasons why we refer to anti-Muslim hatred. It is partly to do with the APPG finding that the definition is not in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. If the hon. Gentleman wants more correspondence on why that is the case, I am very happy to provide it. I stand here not just as the Minister for faith but as the Equalities Minister. We must not allow those who seek to divide our diverse and multi-faith society to succeed. We are united here today in our determination to protect people and end discrimination.

I would like to use this occasion to remind colleagues about the tragic murder of our colleague and friend, Sir David Amess, whose funeral was yesterday. I attended it, as I think many others in this room did. He died at the hands of someone seeking to divide us all; someone claiming to act on behalf of Islam. However, if ever people needed reminding of the real values of Muslims in this country, they need look no further than the tributes paid by the Muslim community of Southend to the life of Sir David. His murder could have fanned the flames of fear and resentment, but instead of opening new fault lines between people, it was met with an outpouring of love and good will.

That is at the heart of what we are here today to discuss. The freedoms to say what we feel and to worship as we please are both fundamental to the character of this country. Those democratic values are reinforced by our staunch belief in equal rights and the rule of law. These are the principles that underpin debates such as this.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I barely have time to finish my speech, so I am afraid not.

No one in our society should be discriminated against because of their religion. In the spirit of remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), I will talk about the contributions of Muslims to our public life.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid I do not have the time.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister clearly does not want to give way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The UK is one of the best places in the world to live, no matter who you are or where you come from. It is full of opportunities. We have a large and thriving Muslim population who have made contributions to our country and society. The country’s first two mosques were founded in 1887, and now there are almost 2,000 mosques serving a Muslim population of more than 3 million. Wherever we look, we see Muslims enriching our public life, including as politicians in the Cabinet, as doctors and nurses keeping our NHS going, and as sporting heroes dominating on the world stage. Their prominence is testament to our openness as a country, and proof of something that has long been true: when someone lives in Britain they can become anything they want, whether that is Health Secretary, Education Secretary or growing up to win gold medals representing Team GB.

I now turn to the remarks made by hon. Members during the debate. I am afraid that I will not be able to cover all of them, but I will try to go through as many as I can. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton invited me to visit the country’s first green mosque. I will have a look at my diary and see if that is something I can accommodate. He also asked what we are doing to keep people safe online. He knows that we are progressing the online safety Bill. If there is anything specific he would like to mention, I would be very happy to take them forward on his behalf—it is a Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport competency, but I am sure that we all can work together.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what we are doing to protect places of worship. I am told that we are funding, through the places of worship protective security funding scheme, quite possibly well over £100 million. Is that correct? It is quite a lot. I will confirm the amount, but we are putting several millions into the protected security funding scheme. I do not have the exact figure in front of me.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned his letter to the Prime Minister. This has caused quite a bit of confusion. The hon. Gentleman wrote to the PM and received a response from the party chairman. I often respond on behalf of the Prime Minister. I am informed that, after the hon. Gentleman made a point of order, the Prime Minister responded to his letter, so I hope that we can put that matter to rest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) made some really good points about individual action; it is not just about words or definitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) also made the point that this should not be a party political issue, and talked about the trust that people have in different political parties. This is not just a Conservative party issue, and people should not make it out as such.

I thank hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for sharing her experiences of anti-Muslim hatred. I found them quite shocking and will come on to what the Government are doing to tackle that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) asked me to meet the APPG officers. He will be pleased to know that my office has already reached out to the shadow Minister’s office. We have not yet had a response, but I am sure that we will in due course and that we will find a time to meet the APPG. I am happy to meet its chair as well.

Although I admire the passion expressed by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), I disagree with her fundamentally when she says that we should not take the politics out of the debate. We should take the politics out of the debate—in fact, we must. I grew up in a country where people did not take the politics out of the debate and can tell hon. Members now that when we do not do that and allow politics to infect religions, countries burn. As faith Minister, my approach will be to take the heat and the politics out of the debate. [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It was disappointing that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) used her speech to make partisan attacks on colleagues on the Government side of the House. She said that she does not have the lived experience of racism and that we should listen to those who do. I can tell her of my many lived experiences of racism at the hands of Liberal Democrats who made disgusting and vile comments, which I am sure she would be happy to apologise for. We should be able to have this debate without making partisan attacks such as hers. [Interruption.] I did not intervene on Opposition Members, so I will not give up my time to take interventions.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) made a fair point, which I accept. He said that it is fair to talk about action. I accept that he has made a good point that things have been slow. A commitment was made several years ago and we did lose momentum. We had a change in Administration, Brexit and covid, which, fingers crossed, we are coming out of. I think he will find a different change of tone and pace with me as faith Minister.

We all share the view that hatred of Muslims is a vile social ill. We have no time for people who seek to divide us. As I said before, we will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred any more than we tolerate antisemitism or any other form of hatred, but the reality is that, despite this and our continued condemnation, stubborn pockets of prejudice exist.

Home Office figures show that 45% of religiously motivated hate crime recorded by the police was perpetrated against Muslims. The fact that Muslims—[Interruption.]

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Take an intervention!

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I would like to conclude my speech without being talked over. I can barely hear myself. This is not the spirit in which we should—[Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we stop interrupting? We have two and a half minutes. The Member in charge is not going to get to speak and we may not even get to put the question. That is how serious this is. I have tried to be as honest and delicate as I can in this debate and give people the opportunity to speak.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is shameful that Muslims can still face verbal or physical attacks and are made to feel like outsiders in their own country. Political parties are granted a rare standing in public life, and it is our job as politicians to demonstrate leadership and set an example for others to follow in everything we do, from our public discourse to our constituency surgeries.

To that end, it was incredibly disappointing that the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) used their speeches to attack William Shawcross with defamatory remarks that would be actionable if made outside this Chamber. William Shawcross is an outstanding public servant, as is Trevor Phillips, who the shadow Minister mentioned.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I do not make this point of order flippantly. The Minister has just said that Mr Shawcross is a great man and she started her speech by using a trope about Muslims and terrorism, yet she is meant to be talking about Islamophobia. Shawcross has said that the Muslim faith is a fascist faith. How can she say that he is a person to lead a review that impacts on Muslims?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

You know that is not a point of order. Carry on, Minister.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Debates such as this are symbolically important to show our shared commitment, but symbolism does not improve lives on its own. The Government have done a lot and we have some of the strongest legislation in the world for tackling hate crime, and it is working.

I will give a few examples. In 2019 a man who posted violent messages about Muslims alongside photos of him posing with a fake shotgun was jailed for four years. That year, two brothers attacked a group of men outside a Cardiff mosque: one was sentenced to five years and three months in jail, the other to 18 months in jail.

Our approach to discrimination is something that we should be proud of. In July, the European Court of Justice gave the green light to employers in the European Union to ban their workers from wearing hijabs or other religious insignia. We have taken control of our laws and are no longer subject to the ECJ’s jurisdiction. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that that kind of prohibition is thoroughly un-British.

I recognise that the debate is concluding, Mr Dowd, so what I will say in closing is that this is an issue that I am prepared to work on with all Members of the House, but what I will not do is be intimidated or bullied, and—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Draft Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. Members should spend their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, any officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with the Minister.

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Audit (Appointing Person) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The regulations we are considering today were laid in draft form before the House on 21 October 2021. If approved and made, they will provide for the appointing person to set fee scales for local audit later in the financial year; apply standardised fee variations in specific circumstances; and appoint auditors for shorter contract periods, where appropriate. These regulations are designed to provide the appointing person with greater flexibility to ensure the costs to audit firms of additional work are met, and to reduce the need for time-consuming case-by-case consideration of fee variation requests in order to support the timely completion of local audits.

The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations through secondary legislation. This statutory instrument was laid before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The 2014 Act placed responsibility on local bodies to appoint their own auditors. However, that Act also provided for an “appointing person”, specified by the Secretary of State, to appoint auditors on behalf of local bodies that choose to opt into such arrangements. Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd is a subsidiary of the Local Government Association, and it is the body currently appointed to perform that role.

In September 2020, Sir Tony Redmond published his independent review into the effectiveness of external audit and the transparency of financial reporting in local authorities. The Redmond review found that there was an increasing disparity between the fee scales set by the PSAA and the amount of work being carried out by auditors. In turn, that had led to a large increase in the amount of fee variation requests, which are requests from auditors to charge additional fees beyond those provided for in the fee scales set by the PSAA for each audit year. The Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015 provide for fee variations relating to the audit of a particular authority to be considered by the PSAA. In practice, this means that the PSAA can only consider and approve fee variations on a case-by-case basis.

In their response to the Redmond review, the Government committed to reviewing regulations to provide the PSAA with greater flexibility to ensure the costs to audit firms of additional work were met more easily. To provide that flexibility, earlier this year the Government consulted on potential amendments to the 2015 regulations. The overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation agreed with the Government’s proposals, which we now propose as the following amendments to the 2015 regulations. First, this statutory instrument will amend the regulatory deadline for the PSAA to set fee scales, from before the start of the financial year to 30 November of the financial year to which the fee scales relate. This will enable the PSAA to take into account more up-to-date information when setting fee scales, including results from previous audits. More accurate fee scales should help to reduce the number of instances in which fee variations are required.

Secondly, this statutory instrument will enable the PSAA to set standardised fee variations to be applied to all local bodies or groups of local bodies. This change is designed to streamline the fee variation process where a particular issue has had a similar impact on the audit of large numbers of local bodies. Circumstances in which this may apply could include a regulatory or policy change, such as a change to accounting or auditing codes, or even one-off events that have a national or far-reaching impact, as we have experienced recently with the coronavirus pandemic. In those circumstances, the PSAA will be able to apply a standardised fee to all affected bodies, preventing the auditor from having to submit a fee variation request for each individual body. The PSAA will be required to consult both opted-in local bodies and local auditors before setting standardised fee variations.

Thirdly, this statutory instrument will give the PSAA the flexibility to appoint auditors for one or more financial years at time, up to a maximum of five consecutive years. That could include years that precede the date to which the authority opts in, if those years still have an audit outstanding. Under existing regulations, the PSAA is required to appoint an auditor to that authority for the remainder of the compulsory appointing period, which could be up to five years, depending at what point in the appointing period the authority elects to opt in.

In conclusion, these amendments will help to support the stability of the local audit market by making it easier for firms to claim for the costs of work completed. Alongside this, we continue to implement all the recommendations we committed to in our response to the Redmond review, including the regulations we are discussing today. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. Members on both sides of the Committee clearly agree that timely completion of audits is vital in maintaining the transparency and assurance of local authority accounts. Late delivery of local assurance can have a significant impact on not just local authority financial planning, but the timely completion of whole of Government accounts. That is why we continue to implement all the recommendations that we committed to in our response to the Redmond review, including the draft regulations.

To answer the shadow Minister’s first question, this was before my time, but my understanding is that we have provided a response to the Redmond review. The shadow Minister raised the question of ongoing funding, for which I have not seen any specific request directly. That is, obviously, not something that I can commit to in Committee. We look at all decisions requiring financing in the round, and authorities would need to make representations for that. Given the pandemic and what various authorities and auditing groups have had to deal with, I think that funding is appropriate, certainly at this point in time.

A new regulatory body was a really interesting recommendation. In our spring report, we set out our intention to establish the audit, reporting and governance authority—a new regulator to replace the Financial Reporting Council as a system leader for local audit within a simplified global audit framework. That is where we feel we can meet that recommendation, not exactly to the letter with the office of local audit and regulation that I believe was the initial recommendation.

I am happy to follow up in writing if the shadow Minister has any further questions, but I do not have any more comments. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Elections Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 36 stand part.

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

The provisions pertain to the Government’s proposed new digital imprint regime. The new regime will require promoters, and those promoting on their behalf, behind digital campaign material targeted at the UK electorate to declare themselves, providing greater levels of transparency to online campaigning. In clause 36, “the promoter” of electronic material is defined as

“the person causing the material to be published”

and to publish means to

“make available to the public at large or any section of the public.”

The imprint rules will apply to all material in electronic forms that consist of or include speech, music, text, and moving or still images. It is important that the definition of electronic material is comprehensive to reflect the wide scope of the regime. At the same time, we must remain cognisant of the practicalities of imprint requirements for certain mediums. For that reason, telephone calls and SMS messages will not be in scope of the regime, due to the impracticalities of including an imprint in an SMS or a telephone call.

Clause 36 defines key pieces of terminology that are relevant to the digital imprints regime, specifically the political entities that will be required to adhere to the new regime and that are prominent actors in political campaigning in the UK. The definitions in the clause cross-reference other pieces of legislation to ensure that there is consistency with the terminology used throughout the Bill. Both clauses provide clarity to campaigners who will be subject to the regime and provide consistency to the enforcement authorities that will enforce the regime and wider electoral law. For these reasons, I urge that the clauses stand part of the Bill.

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

We are pleased to see provisions in the Bill on the regulation of digital content. The Electoral Commission has advocated digital imprints since 2003. While digital technology and campaigning have proceeded at quite a pace, legislation to ensure that the ways electronic communications are used are transparently portrayed to the electorate has been somewhat slow by comparison. Extending the imprint rules will help voters to make more informed choices on the arguments presented and to assess the credibility of campaign messages in a digital space in the same way as with print material. When digital material is disseminated by a political party, voters who see that material will be aware of that fact and will be able to make their assessments accordingly.

It is right that political parties, candidates and campaigners should not be able to conceal their identity online, any more than they would if they printed out a leaflet and pushed it through doors. However, I want to flag a slight loophole in the legislation, which allows reshared content to disseminate without an imprint. I would be interested in working with the Government —I extend the hand of the Opposition here—to find a way of resolving this issue.

There do need to be requirements on online content to show who has made it, who is paying for it and how it is being promoted so that voters can make informed choices. Amendments to subsequent clauses may go some way to doing that, but broadly speaking it is a great relief to see this measure before the House in the Bill. It is something that we have called for for a considerable time, and it is great to see us moving slightly further forward, although there are still some loopholes left to be closed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Requirement to include information with electronic material

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Very briefly, we will support the amendments. There is no doubt that as a Parliament and a country we are behind the curve and are playing catch-up with those who are experts in digital campaigning. What we do have in our armoury is the demand for transparency. That is all we asking for here: transparency on who is funding and who is the source of these digital political advertisements. That is essential.

We have concerns about what the Government mean by “reasonably practicable”. We need a higher threshold than that. I fear that it would be far too easy for people who are expert in such matters to get around that and to present a convincing argument to the laity on what is reasonable and practicable and what is not. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was right that we have an opportunity to get this right, or certainly to start to close that gap.

The Scottish Parliament elections showed that parties and campaigners largely understood the regulations and were able to comply with them. Anyone who followed those elections, particularly on Twitter, could not have failed to see every candidate changing their Twitter bio during the campaign to explain that. People understood it and people did it.

We have to be alive to the fact that there are people out there who are far more advanced in their technology and their understanding than we are. We should be closing every loophole available to them, to ensure that transparency is increased and that there is no way for them to come out. So we will support amendment 87 and 88.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are opposed to amendments 87 and 88 because they seek to remove a much-needed element of flexibility in the digital imprint regime for campaigners. Under our proposals, an imprint must be included as part of the material being promoted. Only when it is not reasonably practicable to do so can the imprint be in an alternative location—one that must be directly accessible from the material.

We have looked at this issue closely. Clause 37 is not a loophole for campaigners to exploit, to avoid including an imprint in the material. Instead, it is a reasonable and practical provision that ensures that campaigners are able to comply with the requirement to include an imprint in digital material, regardless of the digital platform they are using. This is an essential provision that must be retained.

As Members will know from their own experience of campaigning online, there will be many instances where it is impractical to include an imprint within the material itself. For example, a text-based tweet on Twitter could constitute material that requires an imprint, but given the character limit, including an imprint would leave little room for anything else. That is why, under our provisions, where it is not reasonably practicable, a promoter could instead comply with the rules by including an imprint in a location directly accessible from the material. That could be done by including a hyperlink in the material or by placing the imprint in a user’s Twitter biography.

The Government are mindful that the digital imprint regime must strike the right balance between increasing transparency in digital campaigning and having a regime that is proportionate and enforceable. The Opposition’s amendments would undermine those efforts as they do not provide for any flexibility on the location of the imprint. That could have the unintended effect of incentivising campaigners to avoid certain digital platforms or mediums for a campaign, due to the unreasonable burden of doing so.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said that there was another loophole in terms of material being republished that would not include the imprint. That is not the case. Clause 37 does cover republished material—I am not sure whether she has a different interpretation—and I will come on to republished material when we debate clause 37, when I will explain more fully how the clause does that.

Digital campaigning has become an integral part of campaigners’ efforts to communicate messages and ideas to voters. It must continue to be facilitated, while providing the electorate with increased transparency about who is promoting campaigning material online and on whose behalf. Our provisions do that. For all the reasons that I have outlined, the Government oppose the amendments

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will now continue to present the Government’s proposed new digital imprint regime and the various requirements pertaining to it, which are outlined in clauses 37 to 56. I will also discuss the Government amendments to the clauses as and when relevant.

There are two types of electronic material in scope of the regime—paid-for and unpaid, or organic, material. I will define paid-for—that is, the electronic material— first. Following last year’s public consultation, we have taken on board the consultation responses and expanded our initial proposals to go even further. To that end, clause 38 requires all paid-for electronic material in scope of the regime to include an imprint at all times and regardless of who has promoted it. This aims to capture the type of digital political advertising that currently poses the greatest risk due to its impact and reach: paid-for electronic material that allows individuals to spend significant amounts of money, without identifying themselves, to publish material with the aim of influencing voters.

Two conditions must be met for electronic material to be considered paid-for material in scope of the regime. The first is that material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose of influencing the public or any section of the public to give support to, or withhold support from, a registered party, a candidate or future candidate, an elected office holder, the holding of a referendum in the UK or any area in the UK, or a particular outcome of such a referendum. That is much wider in scope than the print regime, and rightly so. It reflects the realities of campaigning online, where content can be present all year round and is not restricted to specific electoral periods. The provisions have therefore been deliberately designed to capture a broader range of online campaigning material that is not solely linked to seeking to promote or procure electoral success at a particular election.

The second condition for paid-for material in scope of the regime is that the promoter of the material, or the person on behalf of whom the material is published, has paid for the material to be published. Payment does not solely comprise monetary payments, and includes a person providing any other form of payment in return for the publication of the material, including benefits in kind. Broadly speaking, our proposal for paid-for material is thus intended to capture all paid-for digital political advertising.

I turn now to defining “other electronic material”—organic or unpaid material—that is also part of our regime. Applying the regime only to paid-for material would leave significant transparency gaps, given the vast amount of electronic material that is unpaid or organic, which could include posts on a social media platform. Under our regime, therefore, certain political entities will also be required to include an imprint on their other electronic material. By contrast with paid-for material, that is material for which there has been no payment for its advertising.

Our provisions outline the two conditions that a piece of electronic material must fulfil to be considered other electronic material in scope of the regime. The first condition is that, broadly speaking, the material must reasonably be regarded as material that promotes or procures electoral success at certain UK elections, or that promotes or procures the success or failure of a recall petition that wholly or mainly relates to referendums in the UK.

The second condition is that the promoter of the material, or the person on behalf of whom it is published, is one of the following political entities: a registered party, a recognised third party, a candidate or future candidate, an elected office holder, a referendum campaigner or a recall petition campaigner. I wish to emphasise that we have purposefully chosen to restrict the unpaid side of the digital imprint regime to the unpaid material of those specific political entities. That is to avoid stifling political debate and imposing on the general public a requirement to include an imprint where they are expressing their personal political opinion. Additionally, the proposal strikes the right balance between providing a high level of transparency to voters and not placing an undue burden on key political actors to include an imprint on every piece of material they promote.

As campaigners can also share negative campaigning material—for example, about other parties and candidates —material that prejudices the electoral prospects of other parties, candidates and future candidates will also require an imprint. That includes candidates or future candidates on a party list. The concept of future candidates is introduced in clause 28. Future candidates are individuals whose intention to stand as a candidate at a forthcoming election has been declared, but whose formal candidacy has not yet officially begun. That could be someone else declaring on an individual’s behalf, such as an agent or party, or an individual self-declaring as intending to run for elected office on their social media channel.

As candidates become formally recognised at an advanced stage in the electoral cycle, they are able to campaign long before they officially become a candidate. An imprints regime that includes only candidates risks creating a gap in transparency for voters, which is why we are extending the new regime to future candidates. The provisions for the unpaid material of specific entities complement those applying to anyone paying to promote electronic material, thus creating a broad regime that goes further than the print regime and reflects the reality of modern digital campaigning.

Our provisions set out what information must be included in the new digital imprints. The requirements apply to both paid-for and unpaid electronic material that falls within the scope of the regime. As hon. Members will know, having an active online presence is crucial for political parties and campaigners in order to connect with the public and get their message heard. However, voters do not always know who is promoting material online and on whose behalf. Therefore, it is important that the provisions provide certain requirements that an imprint must meet, to ensure that all imprints provide the necessary level of transparency for the public. First, an imprint must be included as part of the material. Only when it is not reasonably practicable to do so can the imprint be in a location that is directly accessible from the material—for example, a hyperlink within the material or placed in a biography—when limited to a certain number of characters, such as in a tweet.

Secondly, the imprint must also be legible or audible and retained as part of the material when republished, if not altered by the person republishing, which I hope addresses the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. That is required to accommodate the design of various digital platforms and ensure that an imprint is accessible to voters, regardless of the platform on which the material is accessed. To ensure maximum transparency and effective enforcement, our provisions state that the imprint must contain the name and address of the promoter of the material, and the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published but who is not the promoter.

We must ensure that the digital imprints regime is capable of adapting to the fast-moving world of digital campaigning and technological advances. Therefore, the measures also provide for the information that is required to be included in the imprint to be modified, if necessary, using a regulation-making power.

The regime aims to strike the right balance between providing a greater level of transparency to voters while ensuring that the imprint requirements are proportionate and enforceable. To that end, generally the republishing or sharing of electronic material by another person will not require a new imprint, because the original imprint should be retained in the material. A new imprint may be required, however, if the material has been materially altered since it was previously published.

I wish to emphasise that we are not in any way attempting to regulate the press and other media through this regime. The regime should not act as a practical barrier to journalists by requiring them to include an imprint when they publish material of a political nature. The provisions therefore provide an exemption for material published for journalistic purposes—which is to say, electronic material the primary purpose of which is the publication of journalism—unless the material consists of an advertisement. Party political broadcasts or referendum campaign broadcasts are also exempt as both are already subject to regulation outside of the regime.

Breaching the digital imprint rules will be a criminal offence. That means that if electronic material in scope of the regime is published without an imprint or with an incorrect imprint, the promoter of the material and any person on behalf of whom the material is being published becomes liable for a criminal offence.

The Bill outlines a number of defences, which includes the defence that the contravention arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control. Furthermore, it is a defence that the person took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the contravention would not arise. It will also be a defence for anyone charged with an offence to prove that they acted in accordance with the statutory guidance, which I shall turn to in detail in a moment.

To ensure consistency with wider electoral law, we will maintain for the digital imprints regime the division of responsibilities between the police and the Electoral Commission that exists for the print regime. As a result, the clauses provide for the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers to apply to the digital imprints regime. That will enable the commission to investigate possible digital imprint offences effectively, as it does with the print regime. The police already have the necessary investigatory powers.

We will also give the Electoral Commission the ability to impose civil sanctions in respect of certain offences and only for material related to political parties and referendums. The police will be responsible for material concerning candidates, future candidates and holders of elected office. As with the print regime, the Electoral Commission will be able to refer any criminal offences to the police, if required.

A person guilty of that offence will be liable to a potentially unlimited fine on summary conviction in England and Wales. On summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the fine will not exceed level 5 on the standard scale and would therefore not be unlimited.

In specific circumstances outlined in schedule 10, a candidate or their election agent may be guilty of an illegal practice for breaching the requirements when promoting electronic material without an imprint. That is consistent with the existing approach for printed material. That being said, evidence from the print regime suggests that the police and Electoral Commission already enforce imprint offences proportionately and effectively and that campaigners overall demonstrate high levels of compliance with the rules. We believe the existing enforcement approach will work equally well for the digital regime.

Material in which the imprint is incorrect or missing should not be able to remain online and influence the views of voters without providing them with the required level of transparency. Therefore, it is imperative that as part of our regime infringing material can be taken down. The clauses provide for access to material that contains an incorrect imprint or no imprint at all to be disabled or to be taken down from the digital platforms hosting the material, such as social media companies.

Notices to take down—orders to take down, when issued by the courts—can be sent by electronic means, or by post, allowing platforms to address the requests quickly. To ensure that due process is followed, the notices or orders may only be issued by the Electoral Commission or the courts once they have determined that material is in breach of the rules. The take-down notice must include the grounds for serving the notice, the consequences of non-compliance and the rights of appeal. No such provisions are required for court orders. It will be a criminal offence for any person who receives a take-down notice or order, such as a digital platform, to fail to comply with the notice or order without a reasonable excuse. It is important that digital platforms are aware of the consequences if they fail to comply with a notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

This is another technical amendment based on proposals that were submitted by the Law Society of Scotland in its written evidence to the Committee, which I know that Government Members have paid deep attention to.

The clause is relatively technical, providing the Government with powers to make amendments to references to subordinate legislation—it goes right down the rabbit hole of the sweeping powers of secondary legislation that the Government are increasingly taking for themselves. Even though this is a relatively technical part of that process, it speaks to the broader principle, particularly as it includes power to amend certain legislation made by the devolved Assemblies.

As Ministers take those powers, it is not unreasonable for us to ask that they be given a duty to consult the relevant Ministers in the relevant devolved institutions, which is what the amendment seeks to do. We requested consent in a previous amendment, which was rebuffed, but surely, in the spirit of co-operation and consensus, the Minister will agree to a formal consultation process. Everybody recognises there is a certain role for statutory instruments and secondary legislation—they are used by the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but we have spoken several times in the Committee of the need to enhance scrutiny procedures and to improve the ability of Members of legislatures of all kinds to interact with them.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, but if she rejects it, as I suspect she will, I hope she will at least give some reassurances about the ongoing commitment to non-statutory consultation with Scottish Government Ministers and reflect on what these measures mean overall for the devolution settlement. The Government increasingly, at will, just take powers through this kind of clause—powers that until recently had been a more formal part of the devolution settlement and had been subject to more formal or informal consents.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clauses in part 7 make general and miscellaneous provisions. Clause 57 provides for a power to allow amendments to the Bill, or any provisions amended by the Bill in other Acts, where references to secondary legislation become out of date in future. This is a necessary power that would allow, for example, a reference to a statutory instrument that is replaced to be updated to refer instead to the new statutory instrument, to ensure the provisions of the Bill remain workable when such changes occur.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Members for Glasgow North, and for Argyll and Bute, would require the Secretary of State to consult with the devolved Administrations before making regulations under clause 57. The hon. Member for Glasgow North asked for reassurance. This Government are committed to working constructively with the devolved Administrations to ensure that elections work well in the best interests of voters. He will have heard the Secretary of State, who is also Minister for intergovernmental relations, speaking at oral questions yesterday. He works very well with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and we should not pretend that things are otherwise in the House of Commons. We will of course liaise with the relevant devolved Administrations over any updating needed due to changes in their secondary legislation, which I think will satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s requirements.

The amendment is overly prescriptive. Some of the updating will relate only to reserved legislation, and some might relate to the secondary legislation of only one of the devolved Administrations, yet the amendment would require a statutory consultation with all of the devolved Administrations each time the power is exercised. That would not be proportionate. I invite the hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 58 contains standard financial provisions. It explains that Parliament will pay for any costs that a Minister of the Crown incurs as a result of this Bill, and for any increased costs incurred under existing Acts of Parliament if they arise as a result of the Bill. It also provides that where the Bill increases sums already payable out of the Consolidated Fund under existing legislation, the increases will also be paid out of that fund, and then does the same for increases of sums payable into the fund.

Clause 59 defines a small number of terms used throughout the Bill. It also ensures that where the Bill creates or amends functions of the Secretary of State by amending other electoral legislation, those functions of the Secretary of State will be exercisable concurrently with the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Clause 60 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, namely the jurisdictions in which each provision of the Bill forms part of the law. Clause 61 sets out, as is common, that the provisions of the Bill will be brought into force using one or more statutory instruments. Those statutory instruments may bring different parts of the Bill into force on different days. Finally, Clause 62 cites the short title of the Bill—the Elections Bill 2021. These are all technical and necessary provisions and therefore I urge the Committee to allow the clauses to stand part of the Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 58 and 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Extent

Amendment made: 7, in clause 60, page 61, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) the amendments made by paragraph 1(1) and (5) extend to England and Wales only;

(b) the amendments made by paragraph 1(2) to (4) and (7) to (12) extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only;” —(Kemi Badenoch.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Simple majority system to be used in elections for certain offices

‘Elections for Mayor of London

(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) In section 4 (voting at ordinary elections)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), omit “(referred to in this Part as a mayoral vote)”;

(b) in subsection (2), omit “, unless there are three or more candidates”;

(c) omit subsection (3).

(3) In section 16 (filling a vacancy)—

(a) in subsection (3), for “a mayoral vote” substitute “one vote which may be given for a candidate to be the Mayor”;

(b) for subsection (4) substitute—

“(4) Section 4(2) (simple majority system) applies in relation to the election as it applies in relation to the election of the Mayor at an ordinary election.”

(4) In section 29 (interpretation of Part 1), omit the definition of “mayoral vote”.

(5) In Schedule 2 (voting at elections), omit Part 1.

(6) In section 165 of RPA 1983 (avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent), omit subsection (4).

Elections for elected mayors of local authorities in England

(7) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(8) In section 9HC (voting at elections of elected mayors)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Each person entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of an elected mayor is to have one vote which may be given for a candidate to be the elected mayor.”;

(b) in subsection (2), omit “, unless there are three or more candidates”;

(c) omit subsection (3).

(9) In section 9HD (entitlement to vote), in subsection (2), for “first preference vote, or more than one second preference vote,” substitute “vote”.

(10) In section 9R (interpretation of Part 1A), in subsection (1), omit the definitions of “first preference vote” and “second preference vote”.

(11) In Schedule 2 (election of elected mayor), in paragraph 1, after “authority” insert “in Wales”.

Elections for mayors of combined authority areas

(12) Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (mayors for combined authority areas: further provision about elections) is amended as follows.

(13) In paragraph 4 (voting at elections of mayors)—

(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

“(1) Each person entitled to vote as an elector at an election for the return of a mayor is to have one vote which may be given for a candidate to be the mayor.”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), omit “, unless there are three or more candidates”;

(c) omit sub-paragraph (3).

(14) Omit paragraph 5.

(15) In paragraph 6 (entitlement to vote), in sub-paragraph (2), for “first preference vote, or more than one second preference vote,” substitute “vote”.

Elections for police and crime commissioners

(16) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.

(17) In section 57 (voting at elections of police and crime commissioners)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit “, unless there are three or more candidates”;

(b) omit subsections (3) to (5).

(18) Omit Schedule 9.’ —(Kemi Badenoch.)

This new clause makes provision for the simple majority system to be used in elections for the Mayor of London, mayors of local authorities in England, mayors of combined authority areas and police and crime commissioners.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kemi Badenoch]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 59.

[Kemi Badenoch]

These amendments move elections for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales, the Mayor of London, combined authority Mayors and local authority Mayors to the simple majority voting system, more commonly known as first past the post. The new clause amends legislation that provides for the supplementary vote system to apply when there are three or more candidates in an election or by-election for each of these posts. Under the new provision, each voter has one vote and the candidate with the most votes will be elected. Amendment 59 is consequential on that provision and modifies the long title of the Bill to include provision about the use of the first-past-the-post system in elections for certain offices.

The Government’s manifesto committed to supporting the first-past-the-post system. That reflects the will of the British people in the nationwide 2011 referendum, which saw two thirds of voters in favour of retaining first past the post for parliamentary elections.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in her speech. Can she help the Committee by explaining why this has been tabled as a Government new clause and was not in the Bill when it was first published?

[Kemi Badenoch]

All I can say is that that would have been a question for my predecessor. These discussions happened before I came into post. I know that this was a Government manifesto commitment, and I see no reason why, if there is a convenient Bill to allow us to fulfil a manifesto commitment, we cannot use it as a vehicle for doing so.

The Government’s manifesto committed to supporting the first-past-the-post system, as I have said, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in March the initial recommendations of the review of police and crime commissioners. It recommended that the Government introduce legislation to change the voting system for all combined authority Mayors, the Mayor of London and police and crime commissioners to first past the post when parliamentary time allowed. The Home Secretary’s review of police and crime commissioners also extended to Mayors who can exercise PCC powers, to metro Mayors and to the Mayor of London. Changing the voting system for local authority Mayors, too, to first past the post will ensure consistency in voting method for all directly elected Mayors in England. This undertaking aligns with our belief that the first-past-the-post system is robust and secure and provides strong local accountability.

[Cat Smith]

I just wonder why it was a Conservative Government who introduced the supplementary vote system for police and crime commissioners if the simple majority voting system is so desirable.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe it was a coalition Government who introduced PCCs, not a purely Conservative Government. We have had PCCs for 10 years now and there has been plenty of time to review the system and decide whether improvements can be made. There are many things that previous Labour and Conservative Governments have done that future Governments will change, and this is one of them.

Changing the voting system will ensure consistency, and this undertaking aligns with our belief that first past the post is robust and secure and provides strong local accountability. Moving to first past the post will make it easier for the public to express a clear preference. Additionally, as a simple, well-understood and trusted system, it will reduce complexity for voters and administrators alike.

On Monday 20 September, the House approved a motion to instruct this Committee to make provision in the Bill for the use of the simple majority voting system in elections for the return of the Mayor of London; an elected Mayor of a local authority in England; a Mayor of a combined authority area; or a police and crime commissioner. The House’s approval has enabled the Government to bring forward this new clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[Cat Smith]

I must say that I was very surprised when we received an instruction motion. To be honest, I had not seen one before during my time in this House, and I did not realise that the Government had been so disorganised that they had forgotten to put one of their manifesto commitments in the Bill, but by all accounts, that is exactly what has happened. It is not only chaotic, but deeply disrespectful to the House.

Our colleagues who do not have the privilege and joy of serving on this Committee got to debate the Bill on Second Reading, when we had no idea that this new clause would be included. Although we are able to debate this new clause, our colleagues were not able to raise concerns about it on Second Reading. It is disrespectful to our colleagues that they have not yet had the opportunity to raise concerns about this clause, but it is also disrespectful to this Committee. When, through the usual channels, we decided which witnesses should give evidence to the Committee, we did not know that a new clause was going to be tabled that would massively shake up the way in which many elections take place in England and Wales. We were not able to get witnesses who were experts in voting systems before the Committee, so that we had the opportunity to quiz them—to ask questions and explore whether the first-past-the-post system is as desirable as the Minister seems to think. We did not have the opportunity to explore how successful, or perhaps otherwise, the supplementary vote system has been in mayoral elections in England, or in police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. None of that was allowed for, which is disrespectful to this House, this Committee, and our colleagues who did not have the opportunity on Second Reading to ask questions and scrutinise the Government.

Moving beyond the incredibly disrespectful way in which new clause 1 has been tabled and turning to its specifics, I ask the Minister what consultation she or her predecessor have had with Mayors about whether this was a change they were seeking. Having spoken to many elected Mayors over the past few weeks, it strikes me that they did not know that this was coming, and it has come as something of a surprise. There was no clamour for it from their offices, and they are deeply hurt that the Minister has not reached out to them to consult with them on this new clause.

Specifically looking at London—I admit that I have had to swot up a fair bit on this issue, because I am not a London MP—in 1998, in the Greater London Authority referendum, Londoners were asked whether they wanted to have a Mayor and an assembly, and it was clear that that Mayor would be elected using a supplementary vote system. Londoners agreed, by a majority of 72.01%, that this was something that they wanted. Is this Committee going to overturn a democratic referendum—the democratic will of the people, we might say; in this case, the people of London—to change the voting system?

Last time we had a debate about changing the voting system in this country, the alternative vote referendum that everyone has clearly long since forgotten about, that question was put to the people, because this is a really major change. For us to be changing the voting system used in elections in this country not by referendum, not even by putting it in the Bill and debating it on Second Reading, but by slipping it in in Committee, is absolutely shocking and appalling. It is one of the lowest points of this Bill; as I have said at earlier stages, there are plenty of other things in this Bill that I disagree with, but I am deeply offended by the way in which the Government have gone about this. It is disrespectful, and it is riding roughshod over democracy.

Specifically in the case of the London referendum, every single London borough voted to elect their Mayor using a supplementary vote system. Who is this Committee—many of us are not even London MPs—to say to those people, “You voted in that referendum for that, but we are taking it away from you”? I had a little look at the breakdowns for different boroughs, because I was surprised when I saw that every London borough had voted for it—this is a diverse city—but in the lowest supporting areas, Havering and Bromley, it was still 60% and 57% voting in favour of that system, with the highest support being in Lambeth and Haringey, which had 81% and 83% respectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

If by “here”, my hon. Friend means the Union, yes, I entirely agree; if he means this Committee Room, I am afraid I do not agree, because I know how desperate Sir Edward is to chair our final sittings next Wednesday, so it is important that the Committee takes as long as it can to consider every one of these new clauses in great detail. I therefore look forward to all the speeches from the Conservative Back-Bench members of the Committee, who will now rise in defence of this major constitutional change that the Government want to bring forward. When they do, I urge them to reflect on the growing divergence that we have spoken about. This is not a levelling up or a coming together, but a growing apart of the constituent parts of the country, which have pretty fundamentally different perspectives on how democracy is, and should be, done. Although it is not for SNP Members to tell Members from England how their local elections should be determined and run, they ought to think about the issue carefully before they cast their vote.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I want to respond to a few points made by Opposition Members. On engagement, the policy was announced back in March. It is just that it was not a Cabinet Office policy; it was a policy from the Home Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, as it was known then. I am informed by officials that there was engagement with Mayors, but the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood may not have been aware of it.

The point about the procedure being disrespectful to the House is nonsense. The House voted for the procedure. It is also wrong to say that people have not had a chance to debate it if they are not on the Committee. I am sure that the Chair will correct me if I am wrong, but anyone not on the Committee who wants to take part in its debates can do so; they just do not have voting powers. No one not on the Committee has turned up today. That means that they did not want to debate this. If they did, they could have done so, just as we all have.

The hon. Lady made multiple references to the London mayoral and London Assembly elections. She is probably not aware that I was elected to the London Assembly in 2012, when I was a list candidate, and in 2016. She says that this is not something that people want. People repeatedly complained about how frustrating the system was. Going back to 1998, when a 2011 referendum occurred, is to ignore more recent evidence. Going back to 1998, when a 2011 referendum occurred, is to ignore more recent evidence. To say that 23 years after the 1998 referendum, which was not specifically on the voting style but really about whether or not to have a Mayor, is a very specious argument. I do not accept it at all.

I also found it mildly amusing to hear the hon. Lady say that the Committee needs experts to explain how first past the post works in relation to other voting systems. All of us here know how first past the post works, and also how the other systems work. I am not sure we can reasonably say we need so much expert advice on the way we are all elected.

Finally, the hon. Lady says that this is undemocratic, and I believe one of the SNP Members said that this was for political reasons. The fact is that in London mayoral elections, to which they are referring, no election would have had a different result, irrespective of whether it was first past the post or transferable voting. This is making things simpler and easier to understand for people who have complained.

[Brendan O'Hara]

To correct the record, I said that it is utterly self-serving, and completely politically partisan, and fundamentally undemocratic.

[Kemi Badenoch]

And I still reject the hon. Gentleman’s point. The fact is that we have a Labour Mayor at the moment; we have had more Labour Mayors than Conservative Mayors; and first past the post gives accountability and strength to the people who are elected.

[Cat Smith]

The Minister is absolutely correct about the London Mayors, and that first past the post would not have changed the results of any London mayoral elections. Is she aware of any mayoral posts currently held in England where the result would have been different using first past the post? Could she perhaps give an example of some of those?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No. I do not have a list of the mayoral elections that would be different, because the point is that we are not doing this for political reasons; we are doing it to simplify the system.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will finish this point, because I know we want to finish this this afternoon. This was a manifesto commitment; people voted in the 2019 election knowing that this was in our manifesto. What would be undemocratic would be if we did not do this. That is why I urge Members to support the new clause.

[Cat Smith]

I will just let the Minister know the answer to my question, which is, of course, that there are some mayoral elections in England that would have been different if they had been held under first past the post. From the ones that I have seen, that would be because the Conservatives would have won under first past the post, while under the supplementary vote, they did not. I just thought I would help the Minister by pointing out that her amendment does very much help the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

It will always be a matter for this House to decide. A citizens’ assembly cannot change the law; only we parliamentarians can do that. A citizens’ assembly could put interesting proposals to the House, and it might throw up proposals that it had not even crossed our minds that the public might want.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised the example of climate change. Lancaster City Council has pulled together a citizens’ assembly on climate change and finding ways in which we, as a city, can be greener. The assembly has come up with proposals that were not in any party’s manifesto at local elections. Those things came forward from the public, who were given that space and opportunity to speak to experts and develop their own ideas. If we take that one small example of looking at climate change in a city in north Lancashire and apply it to a UK-wide citizens’ assembly looking at electoral systems and integrity, as it says in the new clause, the opportunities are far greater. In my time in this Front Bench role, which I have held since 2016, it has struck me that there is an awful lot of talk about electoral systems and democracy in this place, but we do not hear enough from the public. A citizens’ assembly would be a fantastic way of ensuring that the decisions we make can be inspired and influenced by people in this country—our electors.

Parliament is not a citizens’ assembly. We choose to put ourselves forward for elected office. I dare say that the kind of people who put themselves forward for electoral office are not all totally like the rest of the country. Many of the people who elect us look at the job we do and question why we do it. I can say, hand on heart, that both my younger sisters have said to me, “Cat, I have no idea why you do that job.” Being a full-time elected parliamentarian is a completely different experience from being a citizen on a citizens’ assembly, and I do not think we should equate the two.

We can learn lessons from the Republic of Ireland, which uses citizens’ assemblies to debate really complex ideas. That gives me confidence that UK citizens would, like Irish citizens, be able to come to policy solutions on very complex issues, including electoral systems and democratic accountability. We have a lot to learn from them. There is absolutely no obligation on us as parliamentarians to implement the outcome of the citizens’ assembly. We can take those recommendations and do what we do with many parliamentary reports—put them on the shelf and let them get dusty—although I would like to think we would not. However, there is no harm, and only opportunities for good, to come from supporting this new clause.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have listened to the arguments carefully, and I am not persuaded that there is a need for a citizens’ assembly on this issue and for a statutory requirement, so I Members to oppose the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

This is the Minister’s opportunity to make good on what he has said a number of times: that she is listening to the arguments and is somehow open to persuasion—it is just that no Opposition Member has ever managed to be that persuasive. On behalf of the missing millions, please, please look at automatic voter registration. Without it, as I said earlier, we cannot have a functioning, healthy democracy, because there are millions of people missing from our register.

[Kemi Badenoch]

New clauses 3 and 11 would impose a legal duty on public bodies, requiring them to provide information to electoral registration officers for the purposes of automatic electoral registration of identified electors. I am open to being persuaded, but the arguments need to be very good and, clearly, should not contradict the principles on which we stand for election or that can be found in previous legislation. We cannot agree to the new clauses as they contradict the principle that underpins electoral registration: that individuals are responsible for registering themselves. For those reasons, we cannot support new clauses 3 and 11.

In addition, new clause 13 broadly replicates existing legislation and is therefore unnecessary. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 ensures that the facilitation of electoral registration is a condition of the higher education framework, so I urge Members to oppose the new clause.

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 13, which are tabled in my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had discussions about the security of elections, and there has been much talk about whether individuals can fiddle results and how elections can be stolen. I tabled the new clauses with the hope of making our elections more secure, because we know that when the electoral register is more accurate and more complete, it is harder for malign actors to fiddle it round with just a few votes. At the moment, having 9 million voters either missing entirely or registered incorrectly is a weakness in our democratic system. It is a move to improve the security of our elections to have a more accurate electoral register.

I liked the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute: we do not register to pay tax, so why do we register to vote? I believe that it is very important to vote, and I tell anybody who will listen how important it is to take part in our elections, but I am aware that many people do not have figures like me in their lives—they are probably grateful for it. Given that we know we can have automatic voter registration and a more accurate electoral register, it strikes me as utterly bizarre that we would not want that—that we would not want a more accurate electoral register and not want to know that when we go to the country everyone who should be registered to vote can vote and hopefully does vote. I would like to see increased voter turnout, but at the moment people are falling at the first hurdle when they find that they are not on the electoral register.

New clause 13 is specifically about colleges and universities, because we know that younger voters are far less likely to be registered than older voters. There is a real gap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled by me and my hon. Friends. It was good timing for the SNP spokesperson to open the debate on the age of enfranchisement. The Labour party would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Welsh Labour Government have done it, and we have seen it work well for a number of years in Scotland. We know that the record of voting in the Scottish parliamentary and local elections proved that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of casting their votes and making informed decisions.

Since this year’s Senedd elections, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote for their Members of the Senedd. The experience of the Scottish referendum showed that, when given a chance, 16 and 17-year-olds have a higher rate of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting, and 97% say that they would vote in future elections. Only 3% said that they did not know. That flies in the face of some of the arguments that I have occasionally heard in opposition to this idea, although we have not heard any yet today, that say that young people would not be well informed. We know from analysis of the referendum in Scotland that 16 and 17-year-old voters accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group, so, arguably, they are incredibly well informed and not necessarily biased towards one political persuasion.

A lowering of the voting age has been called for many times over the years. I have called for it many times since I was elected. It would enable young people to have their first experience of voting, often when they are still in full-time education. I know from studies that I have read over the years that if an elector votes the first time that they are eligible to vote in an election, they are far more likely to go on to develop a lifetime habit of voting and engaging in democracy. Again, it comes back to security in elections. One of the best ways we can make our elections safer and more secure is by increasing turnout. A good way of increasing turnout in the long term is to maximise the number of people whose first opportunities to vote come when they are still in full-time education, when they are still very much supported to vote.

At the moment, with the voting age for England and Northern Ireland coming in at 18—it has been 18 for UK general elections, and in Scotland and Wales as well—for many young people their first vote comes at a time of great change in their lives. They might be starting out in the world of work, might have gone off to university to study, or might have recently moved out of the family home. It is far better that we give young people an opportunity to vote and give the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds so that we can increase the chances of an electorate that is engaged in the process and that votes. That is better for the security of elections.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who is clearly suffering from significant amnesia if he claims not to have heard the arguments on votes at 16. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the subject has been debated time and again, certainly every single year since 2010. There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard. Given our manifesto commitment to maintain the current franchise at 18, and having been elected on that principle, the Government have no plans to lower the voting age. We will not support the new clause.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Yet again the Minister is outrageously dismissive. A part of her job is to answer questions in Committee. This is an important Committee. To say, “Go and ask an SNP researcher” is an absolute outrage. Minister, you have a responsibility to this House to answer direct questions and I am afraid you have been sadly lacking in doing that. We will not push the clause to a vote this afternoon, but we will test the will of the House on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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”.’—(Patrick Grady.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patrick Grady]

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

As with the other new clauses we are debating in this sequence, new clause 5 is about levelling up the franchise for election to the House of Commons with that of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 is a genuinely historic piece of legislation. It introduced the widest franchise that has ever existed in these islands, possibly in western Europe. In May this year more people were eligible to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections—indeed, more people did vote—than in any other election ever held. That is even more remarkable given the context of the global pandemic and the severe restrictions on the practicalities of voting and the challenges that people faced in terms of social distancing. More people also voted for the SNP than had ever voted for the SNP before.

The 2020 Act was remarkable. It included, as we have just discussed, votes at 16, and the extension that we will come on to. It also included a small number of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. The Electoral Commission reckoned from electoral returning officers’ data that about 38 eligible prisoners had registered to vote in the election. It is a small number—probably it could be larger—but it is nevertheless significant. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on prisoner voting in the United Kingdom meant that the country was in breach of article 3, protocol 1, of the European convention on human rights. The Scottish Government therefore see the introduction of this provision as an important step towards compliance with that judgment and respecting the fundamental rights that exist even for people who have been incarcerated.

The legal system in Scotland also now exercises a presumption against short sentences, but that approach and the right to vote if serving a sentence of 12 months or less are both rooted in the principles of inclusion and a desire for rehabilitation. There is therefore not only a human rights imperative to the new clause—to bring the United Kingdom further into line with the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights—but the importance of aligning the franchise across the different legislatures of these islands. That is something that the Government ought to consider and support, although I suspect we will hear the opposite.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government believe that when citizens commit a crime that is sufficiently serious to detain them in prison, they have broken their contract with society to such an extent that they should not have the right to vote in prison. We were elected on a manifesto that makes it clear that we will maintain the ban on prisoners voting in jail. Prison means the loss of a number of rights and freedoms, not least the right to freedom of association and liberty. The Government believe that the loss of voting rights while in prison is a proportionate curtailment of such rights. As such, we cannot support the new clause.

[Patrick Grady]

I thank the Minister for that brief response. Nevertheless, it is important that we test the will of the Committee, because the new clause is about ensuring that the franchise is aligned and that we are compliant with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Apart from the exception that we agreed this morning, if hon. Members want to speak, they should rise a little bit out of their chairs.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK Government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country. European citizens, for example, have never been entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. This new clause would extend the parliamentary franchise to all foreign nationals resident in the UK. The Government have no plans to extend the parliamentary franchise and cannot support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We have been talking so far about making the Bill less confusing and more streamlined to enable more people to vote—that being the aim—as well as about ensuring that voting has integrity. It will be very confusing to be on the doorstep telling people to vote, depending on whichever agreement we have at the time with different former colleagues in the EU. It would really simplify voting if the new clause were agreed or could at least be considered as the Bill goes forward. It will be very difficult for people to work out whether they possess these voting rights at the time each election happens. To ensure that more people vote and that it is as easy as possible to do so, voting should be as simple as possible, and allowing all EU nationals to vote is the simplest way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Our position has always been that after our exit from the EU existing voting and candidacy rights should be maintained where possible. The new clause would extend the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens where no such rights previously existed, as I said during our debate on the previous amendments. Those who are nationals of a member state have never been able to vote in UK parliamentary elections by virtue of their EU citizenship. If an EU citizen becomes a British citizen, they will be eligible for the parliamentary franchise from that point. The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK Government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the Minister for that pre-prepared paragraph. We will push this new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

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

This new clause would increase the accessibility of postal voting. As we have seen, the Government have reduced voters’ flexibility to use postal votes through the earlier clauses of the Bill. Their changes will make the process of voting more complex and bureaucratic and, I fear, turn voters off bothering to vote at all. Ministers should be directing their energy towards changes that will make voting easier, not putting up more barriers. Since we are considering all things elections, I also wonder why on earth postal voters need to print off and submit a form via the post when it is possible to register to vote online. That an additional administrative burden could be quickly removed through online postal vote applications. The Opposition are trying to make postal voting more accessible, and that requirement is an additional administrative burden that could be removed by allowing online applications.

There is no good reason why the policy intention of this new clause should be voted down by the Government. I would be interested to know whether, if the Minister is not happy with the wording of our new clause, she would be interested in taking it away and exploring ways in which we can embrace digital technology to make our democracy more accessible. She is certainly not afraid of technology: I admire the fact that she is one of the few Ministers who is often at the Dispatch Box with an iPad, rather than a sheet of paper. Given her enthusiasm for all things digital, I wonder whether there is scope for the Government and Opposition to work together and come forward with a solution to digitalise this process, making processes quicker and more accessible for electoral administrators and delivering more of what voters now expect when engaging with any aspect of applying to do things through the state.

Finally, given that COP26 is about to start, moving to online applications would of course reduce the use of paper and would therefore be a greener policy as well.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Committee members may want to get out their smelling salts, because the Government agree in principle with the introduction of online absent voting applications. The Government developed the basis for a potential online absent voting application earlier this year, and further work is under way to determine whether it can be rolled out safely. The Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy and empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a safe, efficient and effective way.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, an important part of the legislation is to provide electors with a choice on how to cast their vote. Now more than ever, people may wish to make use of absent vote and postal vote methods, which are essential tools in supporting voters to exercise their right to vote. As she said, in a digital world, it is right that we spread the use of technology, when that can be done safely, to further increase accessibility and the efficient running of our elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

Absolutely. We just do not know what will happen on the day. We do not want people to lose out on a vote just because emergencies happen. To extend proxy voting will not cost any more. It will not undermine any of the previous clauses; it does not change the fact that voting will be secure—the same security will be there. It all stays the same, but extends it until 5 o’clock on election day, which seems a fair thing to do, and I urge everyone to support the new clause.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government cannot support the new clause as we believe that in order to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, the emergency proxy provision cannot be drawn too widely. We discussed that in passing when considering other clauses. The arguments for emergency proxies still stand. There is already provision for electors to be able to apply for an emergency proxy, as the hon. Member for Putney said, in the event of illness or recent disability or for reasons of occupation, service or employment. These are important provisions that facilitate participation in the electoral process.

In his review into electoral fraud, Lord Pickles considered emergency proxy voting and found that there was concern among electoral administrators that widening the right to an emergency proxy would increase the risk of fraud. We therefore have no plans to increase the availability of emergency proxy voting.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

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

The new clause is in a similar vein to the previous new clause. It would require officers to make provision for voter registration up to and including polling day.

Yesterday, the ultra low emission zone was extended—bear with, because this is relevant. Plans for the ULEZ started in 2014; it was announced in 2017, there were lots of consultations across London, and it was introduced in 2019. There were further consultations on extending it, as has happened. More consultations and measures were put in place. It was very controversial. Signs have been going up on our streets since May. Yet still, yesterday, it was a surprise to some people. A lot of constituents got in contact with me, saying, “What is this ULEZ? Why don’t I have a say on what’s happening?”

As we all know, we might flag something, advertise it as much as we like, but some people will be surprised to find that it is election day. They will be surprised to find out that they have to use their ID to vote. They will be surprised to find out that the deadline to get a postal vote or voter ID has passed. These changes will be a surprise to many. There are 9 million people of voting age not on the register. The moves in the Bill to increase the frequency of registering for a postal vote and to change to the voter ID system will not be known about by many people until election day.

As I have said, every single vote counts. I am sure we all agree. However, in every single pilot for this Bill, people were turned away from polling stations and then did not return because they did not know about the different provisions being made. Some elections are won or lost by a single vote, or a handful of votes.

This, therefore, is a high-risk strategy; if same-day voter registration is not allowed, the Bill will stop people from voting. It is an unproven system—there were not many pilot schemes—and at the cost of £120 million, we must get it right. We should be increasing voting, not decreasing it, and having same-day registration will increase voting. The new clause will enable everyone who wants to vote to vote. Not allowing same-day registration will prevent that.

I am sure the Minister will not accept the new clause, despite the earlier signs of change. However, I challenge her to return to amend the Bill, if this is not accepted, with the provisions that she would deem necessary to enable same-day registration, and to match the ID that would be deemed to be strong enough, safe enough and secure enough to maintain the integrity of the Bill, in the Government’s view, but also allow same-day voting.

[Kemi Badenoch]

We cannot agree to the new clause, as it would have a significant logistical impact on the conduct of elections. Allowing registrations on polling day itself would raise issues about how the eligibility of applicants can be verified, and uncertainties as to the register to be used for the election, undermining confidence in the process.

All applications should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and checks; if we allow applications to be made on the day, that would leave electoral registration officers having to confirm a person’s eligibility after the close of poll. As there is a legal requirement that returning officers start the count within four hours of the close of poll, that would have a significant impact on the timing of the declaration of the results for polls. The declaration would need to be delayed, pending confirmation that those voters who registered on polling day were indeed entitled to vote at the poll.

Any same-day registrations would need to be verified by EROs, which could take some days to do. That would no doubt present some issues to the longstanding tradition of counting and declaring election results as soon as possible, which has had benefits for establishing certainty and for having a Government in place as soon as possible. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the awareness of the report to the Committee and directing us toward the potential risks when it comes to overseas permitted donors. Those open the door to a lot of concern, which we have seen in the past and has been reported on in past elections.

What better way is there to have influence than with a UK residency? Someone could be living here as a student, qualify as a resident, then return to their country and many years later be able to register as an overseas voter, thus being able to bankroll and influence our parties. It is unfair and wrong that there is a loophole. People who do not live in the UK and pay tax and are not affected by the rules and decisions of elected politicians can take such a full and active role in financing our political system, giving them more of a say—because of their wealth—than many working people living here all their life, who are very affected by the decisions made.

Many feel that Tory donors, for example, already have more of a say than working people in this country, and the Bill will only continue that fear. As the shadow Minister said previously in Committee,

“My biggest concern about the overseas electors section of this Bill is the fact that it could undermine the integrity of our electoral process.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2021; c. 245.]

Let us be clear: the true motivation behind these changes to overseas voting is to create a loophole in donation law that would allow donors unlimited access to our democracy, allowing them to bankroll Tory campaigns, for example, from their offshore tax havens. If that is the case, then vote against the amendment, cut the link between overseas voters and permitted donors, and only allow overseas voters to vote. It is as simple as that. If that is not the true motivation, let us close the loophole and cut the link by voting for new clause 14.

[Kemi Badenoch]

As the hon. Member mentioned, we discussed this issue when considering clauses on overseas electors. I did agree with Opposition Members that we should look at ways to ensure that we do not inadvertently create new loopholes while trying to secure the voting system or inadvertently extend the franchise beyond the Bill’s intention.

Having said that, what the hon. Lady refers to as a loophole is not. It is a long-standing principle—one originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998—that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register. If someone can vote for a party, they should be able to donate to it.

UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of spending and donation controls, to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK election can donate or campaign. That includes British citizens who are registered as overseas electors. I have explained that I am very open to discussing what we can do to secure the system but, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government do not support the new clause. I hope the hon. Member for Putney understands that and will withdraw the new clause.

[Cat Smith]

I wonder whether I might trouble the Minister. Will she commit to a meeting to discuss the specific issues that the new clause raises, looking particularly at the Russia report and whether we could find cross-party agreement on ensuring that our elections and democracy are safe and secure?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am very happy to have a meeting, and I think we should look at the whole section on overseas electors. I have not read the Russia report, so I am keen to get a briefing on it from the hon. Lady. I am sure that officials will also prepare a briefing so that I can fully understand. Given that, I hope the Opposition will withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the point about proportionality is very important. We have heard about the rampant corruption in the UK electoral system and the complete inadequacy of the police, the Electoral Commission, local election returning officers and so on. A picture has been painted throughout the passage of the Bill. Why would the Government be content to keep the maximum level of fine at £20,000, when the Electoral Commission says it is really not adequate to provide either a deterrent or a punishment?

One example on which everyone in this room will find a point of consensus was when the Liberal Democrats were fined £20,000. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are not here to defend themselves—it is a wee shame. In all seriousness, the investigation that year found that 307 payments totalling £184,676 were missing from the Liberal Democrats’ spending return without a reasonable excuse. In return, they were fined £20,000, which was the maximum that the Electoral Commission could levy.

I would not suggest that is the mindset of the Liberal Democrats, but less scrupulous participants in our electoral process might think that £20,000 was a price worth paying for not reporting figures that were nearly 10 times that amount. To be clear, I am not saying that was the case with the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps other, less scrupulous participants might adopt that attitude.

We should adopt a more proportionate system by simply raising the maximum threshold. We are all familiar with the scene in “Austin Powers” where Dr Evil demands a ransom of $1 million as part of his nefarious plan to take over the Earth, and everybody laughs because it is not a huge amount of money in the modern world that he has woken up in. Similarly, a fine of £20,000 does not adjust for the rate of inflation and cost of inflation—not least the increases that we are experiencing as a result of the Tories’ disastrous Brexit policies.

A fine of £20,000 is not as high as it could be, so a maximum of £500,000 is slightly more realistic in the modern world, and then the proportionality of the 5% gives the Electoral Commission that extra flexibility and additional teeth that it might need to serve as a deterrent or to take action in the event of a breach. I have no doubt that the Minister will have lots of creative reasons for rejecting the new clause, and I look forward to hearing what they are.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government do not support the new clause for several reasons. I am aware that the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in its “Regulating Election Finance” report that the Electoral Commission’s fining powers should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend, or £500,000—whichever is higher. The new clause closely mirrors that proposal.

The Government’s view is that the commission already has adequate powers to impose civil sanctions on political parties and non-party campaigners of up to £20,000 per offence. The new clause would increase that to £500,000 per offence. We should remember that criminal matters can be and are referred to the police, and in certain cases are taken to criminal prosecution. The courts have the power to levy unlimited fines for some offences and custodial sentences.

As set out in the Government’s response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life report, any extension of the commission’s fining powers would need to be considered carefully to assess their necessity and proportionality, because it is vital that they are an effective deterrent but do not cause a chilling effect on electoral participation and campaigning. Any direct comparisons with fines that can be issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office should note the clear difference between the two regulators and the types of entities that they regulate.

I sympathise with the example that the hon. Member for Glasgow North gave about the Liberal Democrats, but the truth is that political parties are not global corporations. There are over 350 currently registered with the Electoral Commission, many of which are predominantly made up of volunteers. As part of the further work of looking at the regulatory framework for elections beyond this Bill, the Government intend to look at all the recommendations in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, alongside similar ones, including the forthcoming report on the commission from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. For these reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause; or the Committee to oppose it.

[Patrick Grady]

Perhaps if the Minister had been willing to give a little ground, we would be willing to withdraw the new clause. However, we will test the will of the Committee by pressing it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Elections Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. I know that you have heard them before, but if you could listen, that would be helpful. Could we have social distancing, and could we have masks being worn when not speaking, please? Also, to be helpful to our wonderful Hansard colleagues, could you email any notes to [e-mail]? [Interruption.] That is a reminder: please could you turn off all electronic devices? Thank you very much indeed.

We now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Members who wish to press a grouped amendment to a Division should indicate that they wish to do so when speaking to it.

Clause 16

Notional expenditure: use of property etc on behalf of candidates and others

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Clause 16 makes an important clarification to our political finance rules that I hope will be welcomed by all members of this Committee. In 2018, after the Supreme Court determined that the rules on notional expenditure for candidates did not contain a test of authorisation, there were concerns among parties and campaigners that candidates could be liable to report benefits in kind that they did not know about, but could be seen to have benefited from. On Second Reading, we heard about the direct impact that unclear rules about notional expenditure has had on colleagues, and we must prevent the unwelcome consequences that this confusion may have on participation, such as stopping people from volunteering to be agents due to their fear of falling foul of the law through no fault of their own.

That is why we are making it clear that candidates only need to report as notional expenditure benefits in kind—property, goods, services and facilities that are given to the candidate at a discount, or for free—that they have used themselves, or which they or their agent have authorised, directed or encouraged someone else to use on the candidate’s behalf. That is what was already widely understood to be true prior to the court case. We have sought input from the Parliamentary Parties Panel on these measures, and are confident that they will bring important clarity to the rules and support compliance.

In this clause, we are also making an equivalent amendment to the rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure consistency. Expenditure that promotes an individual candidature would continue to count towards a candidate’s own spending limit, and expenditure that is joint between a party and a candidate will continue to be apportioned appropriately, a practice which all parties have long engaged in. Together, these changes will bring much-needed reassurances and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules that apply to notional expenditure. They will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel safe in doing so. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Codes of practice on expenses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

This clause amends existing provisions in electoral law in respect of the codes of practice that the Electoral Commission may prepare on election expenses for candidates. The clause also amends the parliamentary procedure to bring into force some of those codes of practice, so that parliamentary procedures are consistent.

Clause 17 ensures that the code of practice on candidate spending that the Electoral Commission may prepare can, and should, cover what constitutes notional expenditure and third-party spending under the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are making that change in order to put the scope of the guidance beyond doubt. It is important that the guidance is comprehensive, so that it can address concerns about notional expenditure that have been raised across the political spectrum. At present, the legislation implementing the various codes of practice on candidate spending is difficult to understand, and different codes are subject to different procedures.

Currently, the codes of practice on spending for both candidates and parties and campaigners are laid before both Houses in draft form, and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny for up to 40 days. It is right that Parliament is able to scrutinise those codes before giving them final approval, so this will not change. We are amending the provisions for the candidate code in the 1983 Act simply to specify that the order that brings this code of practice into force is a statutory instrument. This is a minor amendment to an existing power and simply remedies the fact that the legislation does not specify that at present. Like the other codes, the candidate code will still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny for up to 40 days. We are not changing that.

We are also amending the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that the order bringing the code of practice for political parties into force is subject to no parliamentary procedure, rather than being subject to the negative resolution procedure. That is in line with other commencement orders and with the procedure followed for other codes of practice prepared by the Electoral Commission. This follows the initial 40 days of parliamentary scrutiny when the code is laid in draft, and that will not change. As I explained, these changes will ensure that the procedure for all the codes of practice are consistent and clearer, while ensuring that Parliament remains able to duly scrutinise them and give them final approval.

None of the codes has been put forward to Parliament to date and, given that the Elections Bill is changing the law on notional expenditure, the draft codes previously developed by the Electoral Commission will need to be updated to reflect the changes in the law. We would expect the Electoral Commission to consult political parties and others in future on any new codes of practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Authorised persons not required to pay expenses through election agent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits any third party spending above a certain amount on candidates without the written authorisation of the election agent. However, the current rules also provide that any authorised spending incurred by the third party must be paid for by the election agent. That is not logical, which is why we are amending the rules so that any authorised spending under section 75 can be both incurred and paid for by the authorised third party.

The measure does not change the existing rules around submitting spending returns, as any authorised spending should still be reported by both the third party and the candidate. This change will make the process of paying for that authorised spending more straightforward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Declaration of assets and liabilities to be provided on application for registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 19 amends section 28 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to bring forward transparency about political parties’ assets and liabilities to an earlier stage. There is already a requirement for political parties to maintain a record of assets and liabilities in their annual accounting records. However, that information may not be available until up to a year after a party registers and can therefore be after an election that the party has contested.

Parties with assets or liabilities that do not exceed the £500 threshold will be required to make a declaration confirming that fact. Parties with assets or liabilities in excess of £500 will be required to produce a record of those assets and liabilities to accompany their declaration. That will be incorporated into the registration process with the commission and into the register maintained and published by the commission. Parties with assets and liabilities of above £500 will be indicated on the register of parties.

This is a good step forward as it will allow earlier public scrutiny of parties’ finances and ensure public confidence in the transparency of all political parties’ financial positions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Prohibition on entities being registered political parties and recognised third parties at same time

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 21 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 20 prohibits groups and individuals from having access to multiple spending limits at an election. Spending limits exist to ensure a level playing field, and any opportunities to unfairly expand them should be removed. During the 2019 UK parliamentary general election, one group claimed that it could do exactly that by registering as both a political party and a third party campaigner. That showed the potential for the current rules to be abused and spending limits expanded.

If we do not close down the loophole, it may be exploited further in future. This change will prohibit recognised third party campaigners from registering as political parties and gaining access to a spending limit for each registration. That will serve to protect the integrity of the existing spending limits.

To ensure that there can be no doubt, the list of individuals and entities permitted to be on the third party campaigner register will also be amended to remove political parties. As groups may already appear on both registers when the provision comes into force, clause 21 will ensure that any group that spends in a third party capacity during a regulated period will not be able also to spend as a political party. That means that any group appearing on both registers when these provisions are commenced will have to choose whether it wants to spend as a political party or a third party campaigner during any subsequent regulated period.

Finally, clause 20 also makes consequential amendments to the rules on donations, spending and reporting for recognised third party campaigners, where they currently refer to the specific requirements for political parties, which take into account their existing financial controls as a party. Altogether, these changes will ensure that groups cannot use the rules to their advantage to expand their spending limits unfairly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 22 restricts all third party campaigner spending during a regulated period to entities eligible to register with the Electoral Commission, as listed in section 88 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and to overseas unincorporated associations with the requisite UK connection.

Currently, foreign third party campaigners can legitimately spend on UK elections underneath the recognised third party campaigner registration thresholds, which are £20,000 during a regulated period in England, and £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This activity becomes illegal only once the thresholds are passed. It is important that only those with a legitimate and fair interest in UK elections are able to influence the electorate.

Clause 22 will remove the scope for any legal spending by foreign third party campaigners underneath the registration threshold but above a £700 de minimis. The inclusion of such a de minimis provision will balance the desire to prohibit spending by foreign entities without criminalising low level, potentially unintentional breaches below £700, which are unlikely to adversely impact an election.

It is worth noting that only individual overseas electors are permitted to register as third party campaigners with the Electoral Commission. In order to support overseas electors, who are important participants in our democracy, to work together, the clause will permit them to form unincorporated associations to campaign if they spend below the new lower tier registration threshold of £10,000, set out in clause 24. That is in line with the current situation, and it is only right that such electors should be able to spend in UK elections as they can now. Under our proposals, unincorporated associations will meet the “requisite UK connection” requirement to incur spending in UK elections only if they are composed solely of registered overseas electors.

To conclude, these provisions make necessary and proportionate changes to ensure that spending at UK elections is only permitted, above a £700 de minimis, for those with a legitimate interest in UK elections. They help reduce the risk of illegitimate foreign influence in UK elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Third parties capable of giving notification for purposes of Part 6 of PPERA

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 23, page 33, leave out lines 6 to 10.

This amendment would leave out the powers for ministers to remove categories of permitted campaigner while leaving in place their power to add new categories of campaigner.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 23 builds directly on the requirements put in place by clause 22. As I have mentioned, the aim of clause 22 is to remove the scope for foreign entities to spend above a £700 de minimis amount during the regulated period running up to an election by restricting all third party campaigner spending at that time to spending by entities that are eligible to register with the Electoral Commission, as in section 88 of PPERA.

However, we are conscious that legitimate categories of third party that are not on the list of categories of campaigners may emerge in future, and clause 22 would significantly restrict their ability to campaign if they could not be added to the list quickly. For that reason, clause 23 makes provision for the amendment of the list of eligible categories of third party campaigners in PPERA. It will allow the Government to add to, remove items from, or otherwise amend the list of categories of third party campaigners as necessary. Any such changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure. These provisions will ensure that we can be responsive to the emergence of new groups, and that eligible categories of third party are not unduly restricted from campaigning and participating in our democracy in future. I therefore urge the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Recognised third parties: changes to existing limits etc

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 24, page 33, line 23, at end insert—

“(5C) Registered charities and Community Interest Companies may act as a recognised third party subject to the lower-tier expenditure limits without the requirement to give the Electoral Commission notification under section 88 of PPERA.”

This amendment would exempt registered charities and Community Interest Companies from the notification and registration requirements of Clause 24, which introduces a new lower tier registration for third party campaigners who spend more than £10,000 on controlled expenditure anywhere in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, though I admire his endless optimism that the chances are middling to none. He is far more optimistic than me that the Government will ever move an inch. That does not mean that the arguments cannot be made. Indeed, there is every reason for the arguments to be made.

At general elections, every single one of us has been made to think, question and commit one way or another to an idea coming from a third party or campaigning organisation. That is exactly how it should be in a democracy. When we put ourselves forward for election, people have a right to know where we stand on the big issues of the day—whether that is homelessness, third-world debt or support for those suffering domestic violence—and where better to do that, for a charity or third party organisation, than a general election? People are not asking us just as individuals; they are asking all those who put themselves forward for election in this country where they stand, because our public have an absolute right to know that.

The real question is about the motivation of the Government in introducing the measure in the first place. Campaigning is a core function of many organisations. It allows them to highlight areas of concern and contribute to the wider public discourse, from a position of authority and experience, from which every one of us benefits. We have all heard from numerous third party organisations of their concerns, but these measures will make an already complicated area even more confusing and burdensome for those issue-based campaigning organisations. They face new rules that may see them inadvertently fall foul of legislation and, as a result, step a long way back from their activity. They will shrink back from that public debate, which can only harm our democracy. That will dampen public debate, and the voice of those marginalised groups they represent will be further diminished.

Organisations will quite rightly engage in campaigning 12 months prior to a general election, but the vast majority of that campaigning will not be focused on that general election. Those organisations campaign every day of the year, every year of a decade. That is what they are there to do; they are there to inform and to advocate.

What is really troubling here is the purpose test and whether it can be passed. It is confusing. The legislation says that the purpose test can be passed if it

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or do not support particular policies”.

That is all well and good, but the confusion arises because that is not the intention of the charity of a third sector organisation. The interpretation comes from someone else, and it is their perception of what counts as political campaigning. Even if the charity is clear that that is not its intention, it could be decreed by someone else that it is. The result is that the charities will shrink from those areas of concern—homelessness, domestic abuse—for fear of falling foul of the legislation. Many of us on this side of the Committee think that that was probably the Government’s intention from the start.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendments 76 and 90 would exempt from the transparency requirements provided by the lower tier of expenditure registered charities, charities exempt from registering with the Charities Commission, and community interest companies spending more than £10,000 across the UK but less than the existing notification thresholds. Amendment 77 would allow those groups to forgo the usual notification process for the lower tier and instead provide only their charity or company number.

The Government are clear that any group spending significant amounts in UK elections should be subject to scrutiny. That is essential to ensure transparency for voters and to maintain the level playing field for all participants in elections. It is therefore right that all types of third party campaigner should be subject to the same sets of rules where they are trying to influence the electorate. The amendments would undermine those principles, and the Government cannot accept them.

Additionally, third party campaigner regulations do, and should, focus on the purpose of campaigning activities conducted by all organisations, not just specific types of organisation. Charities and CICs can always choose to spend less than £10,000 in the period before an election if they do not want to register with the Electoral Commission.

[Patrick Grady]

Given the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, how will charities know when it is 12 months before a general election?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will come to that point in a moment. Charities can choose to spend less than £10,000 in the period before an election. The clause is drafted so as to increase transparency by requiring third party campaigners to register at a lower level of spend than is currently the case, while also ensuring that the regulatory requirements on such third party campaigners is proportionate to their campaign spend.

Digital technology has significantly reduced the cost of campaigning, and it is important that the lower tier of expenditure reflects that reality. Those third parties subject to the lower-tier expenditure limits will be subject only to minimal registration requirements and will not be subject to reporting or donations controls. That increased transparency is intended to reassure the electorate and to continue to uphold transparency as a key principle of UK elections. No group should be exempt from that. In fact, having third party spending limits is essential to prevent the influence of American style “super political action committee” pressure groups in UK elections.

The notification requirement for third party campaigners involves the provision of important information, which the Electoral Commission uses to ensure that campaigners are eligible and to provide information about those campaigners to the public. While amendment 77 would still require third party campaigners to notify the Electoral Commission, it would allow them to provide only their registration numbers with the Charity Commission or Companies House, instead of providing the usual information, which would undermine the intended transparency.

Let me address some of the questions raised by Opposition Members before I continue on clause 24. I am not clear about what the hon. Member for Putney was referring to when she talked about the impact on the lobbying Act; if I am not answering her question here, I am happy to write to her with more information. The report on the 2014 lobbying Act from Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said that as one of the fundamental purposes of electoral law

“is to maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, it must be right that any regulation should apply to all such participants, regardless of their size or status.”

That shows that, even as the lobbying Act was being created and reported on, those considerations were taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

Indeed, or a Back-Bench MP—how will they know when they are in that 12-month period before a general election?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact is that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Although snap elections can be called, the fact is that everybody will be in the same situation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not giving way again on that point. Third party campaigning groups will not have any special intelligence. People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically. People seeking to influence the electorate should all be subject to the same laws.

The debate is not about whether charities are nice groups or nice individuals, which is 50% of the argument made by SNP Members. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like Opposition Members want charities to make their political arguments for them, because they think they are more acceptable.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am no longer giving way on that point.

That is not how we want to regulate our politics or our electorate. Charities should make points on their own—not in the way that SNP Members are saying, as if there are other political reasons that would be helpful to them, rather than the Government. They accuse us of playing politics, but it sounds to me as though they are the ones doing that.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

In 2017, the Prime Minister called a snap general election. What would the Minister say to charities who find themselves in a similar situation after the Bill is passed?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I would say that all third party campaigning organisations need to be mindful of their spending. I believe that snap elections are a rarity, given what happened in 2017. They do not happen very often.

[Patrick Grady]

And in 2019?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, but the fact is they are not very common. Every single one of us in this room is in the same situation. I was elected in 2017. I did not know that a snap election was going to be called. I am afraid that what Opposition Members are asking for is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which is not within the scope of what we are discussing. Debates on the clause are not the place to discuss certainty around election time, if that is what Opposition Members want. The clause is about regulating political finance transparency.

The fundamental point made by Opposition Members is that clause 24 creates an undue administrative burden for charities and community interest companies, but it does not do that. They can easily supply the relevant information.

[Cat Smith]

Can the Minister answer a very simple question? Will there be a UK general election by 26 October 2022? That is 12 months from today.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady knows that I cannot answer any questions about when elections are forthcoming. That does not change the premise of our argument. I do not know; she does not know; charities do not know; no third party campaigners know. The law is equal for everybody. I am afraid we simply do not accept the argument that there should be special rules and exemptions for particular groups.

Charities can supply the relevant information, and the amendment would increase the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission—a point it has made several times—and not allow it to obtain all the necessary information covered in the notification requirements. Under the amendment, charities and community interest companies would not have to provide the name of a responsible person. That information cannot be obtained through Companies House or the Charity Commission because it is specific to electoral law.

It is important to identify a person who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with electoral law. Naming a responsible person also acts to protect third parties from being liable for expenditure that has not been authorised by that person. Allowing charities and community interest companies to be exempt from that requirement would risk their duty of compliance and protection falling away, which would not be right. In the light of the reasons I have given, and the minimal burden on charities that the measures will generate, we oppose the amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have a question for the Minister, which I think is a perfectly reasonable and fair question to ask on behalf of charities. How do they know right now that they are not 12 months out from a general election? How do they know where their spending is in relation to the next general election, and that they have not already exceeded the threshold? The question is whether she thinks it is fair for charities inadvertently to fall foul of the legislation, with their having absolutely no way of knowing where they stand because the Government have changed the rules around about them. Will she address the basic issue of fairness to our charities?

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Third party campaigners must currently register with the Electoral Commission before they spend £20,000 in England and £10,000 in any of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for controlled spending during a regulated period before an election. Groups that spend below those thresholds could be spending substantial amounts of money on campaigns, but they are not regulated. Clause 24 addresses that issue, and introduces registration for third party campaigners at a lower level of spend than is currently the case.

Third parties spending in excess of £10,000 on controlled expenditure during a regulated period across or in any constituent part of the UK, but below the existing per-country thresholds for registration, will be required to register with the Electoral Commission. That will not replace the existing registration thresholds, which will stay in place. Therefore, if a third party campaigner spends more than £20,000 in England or £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they will still be required to notify the commission as they currently do. That will be for all groups, as we said in the debate on the amendments. No exceptions will be made for any special category of campaigner; they will all be subject to the same rules.

In addition, all the measures apply only to qualifying expenditure that can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election. I want to be clear that they do not apply to wider non-electoral campaigning that groups may undertake.

As I mentioned, third parties registered in the lower tier will be subject to minimal regulation upon registration—for example, ensuring that they are UK based or otherwise eligible to register with the Electoral Commission. Again, such entities will not be subject to some of the other political finance controls in legislation around reporting on donations and controlled expenditure, nor will they be subject to the internal reporting and recording requirements.

We must recognise that digital campaigning has significantly altered the campaigning landscape by making it easier to spend less on campaigns and to spend more widely across the whole UK. Introducing registration at a lower level of spend reflects that reality and will help to increase transparency for the public with regulation proportional to the level of spend.

[Patrick Grady]

The Minister said in her previous speech that the measure was partly intended to avoid a situation arising comparable to the US super-PACs that spend millions of dollars with very little regulation. It is impossible under current UK electoral law for a situation anything like that to arise in this country. The notion that small local charities that want to lobby their local candidates to stop the closure of a swimming pool, a school or a library are somehow comparable to the dark money seen in other parts of the world, which has been reported as potentially having an increasing impact in this part of the world, is completely extreme.

It is not impossible that there will be a general election in February 2022, because as the Minister has admitted, the Prime Minister will have that option when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is finally repealed. As soon as that happens, the next election campaign will effectively start, which is delightful for all of us because of the rare snap elections that we have experienced twice in the last three years.

Under the terms of the clause, if an election came that early it might be the case that some organisations would have already reached the threshold without knowing it, not least because they are in the process of holding us to account for pledges that we made in 2019 that they have not had much opportunity to lobby on. Organisations that are organising a big lobby day—there are several coming up—that involve a lot of logistics such as the hire of the hall and the transportation of people, and that are related to pledges that Members may have made at a general election and therefore could reach the threshold, may find that they are already in breach without knowing it.

It is an awkward clause that relates to the overall package of reform that the Government are bringing in through the Bills that we have mentioned throughout the progress of this Bill, including the repeal of the 2011 Act, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and the other aspects of electoral and political law that are being amended. The Minister is falling back on the idea that it affects everyone, but that does not really answer that point. In a sense, it does affect all of us and we may already be in the run-up to a general election campaign but we just do not know because of the power grab that is being exercised by the Conservative Government, of which this clause is another example.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Third party campaigners are subject to limits on their controlled expenditure in the periods leading up to parliamentary elections in the UK, including devolved elections. The time during which those spending limits apply are known as regulated periods and are 12 months long for UK parliamentary elections and four months long for the relevant parliamentary elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regulated periods can be longer where they overlap. It is right that any campaign that could influence the electorate at an election should be regulated and subject to a spending limit. While significant amounts of spending might take place following the announcement of a poll, elections are often known, rumoured or expected to take place long before the poll date is announced and a Parliament is dissolved, which is the point that we are debating.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Can the Minister explain how the House can legislate on the basis of a rumour of when a general election might be? How is that any way to run a country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is not what we are legislating on; that is a statement of fact. Just as with every intervention the hon. Gentleman has made, it is a point we all acknowledge that while elections are at expected times, they can happen at different times: earlier or there may be snap elections, though rare. That does not change the fundamental point under discussion.

Opposition Members seem to be annoyed that there is a regulated spending period at all. I am afraid that that is not going to change. Campaigning and political activity, which can occur up to 12 months or more in advance of an election, may have a significant influence on its outcome. Having a short regulated period, as proposed by the amendment, would mean that spending, which does influence the electorate, is likely to fall away from being regulated and reported. That fatally undermines the principle of transparency and spending limits.

[Cat Smith]

On the point about transparency, does the Minister not recognise that the Government are not being transparent with charities or third party campaigners? How are they ever meant to know when the regulated spend period is kicking in when we do not have scheduled, regular general elections for the UK Parliament because of legislation we already passed a couple of months ago? Does the Minister agree that we are asking charities, which are blindfolded, to make decisions with no idea when an election will take place? The amendment is the only way we can treat all third party campaigners fairly and give them any sense of transparency. Can the Minister see that the Government are a little inconsistent on the point about transparency?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do not think so at all. In the previous clause, we made the situation equal for everybody. The Opposition are talking as if there is a secret conspiracy where everybody knows, other than them, when an election is going to be called. We are applying the law equally to everybody. That is right and I am happy to continue making the argument.

[Fleur Anderson]

Will the Minister give way on the point about a conspiracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have already given way multiple times and we need to proceed. There are other more important reasons why the amendment simply cannot pass.

Under the terms of the amendment, third party campaigners would be able to incur spending beyond their current limit, prior to the poll being officially set, and still be able to influence the electorate. That would give a potential advantage to those with access to greater funds, and thus also undermine the fundamental democratic principle that there should be a level playing field for all those taking part in elections. That would apply to all third party campaigners, whether on the Government’s side or the Opposition’s. That is the fairness about which the hon. Lady is talking. In addition, donations of third party campaigners are regulated only where they are used for controlled expenditure during a regulated period. That ensures that donations that are spent to influence the electorate in the period before an election come from permissible sources and are fully transparent. This is a regulated period amendment and we are not talking about charities.

A shorter regulated period would allow third party campaigners to accept and spend donations from potentially impermissible sources in the run-up to an election, and do so without being subject to transparency controls, as long as those donations were spent before the regulated period began. That risks unchecked money being used to influence the outcome of an election.

[Cat Smith]

Can the Minister confirm for the benefit of the charities that are watching our proceedings that we are not currently in a regulated spend period?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have answered that question already.

The amendment, as drafted, does not achieve the aims set out in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. Although the memorandum suggests that the amendment would limit

“regulated periods for UK Parliamentary General Elections to the period between the announcement of the election and the close of polls”,

that is not correct. It makes changes to section 85 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides a definition for what constitutes controlled expenditure, namely spending incurred by third party campaigners at relevant elections, not just UK parliamentary elections, which can be regulated. The amendment does not amend the length of the regulated period, but rather creates an additional time period over which controlled expenditure is regulated. That would cause confusion to third parties as to which time applies.

The amendment would also create disparity between the rules for third party campaigners and the controls on political parties, which would still have a twelve-month regulated period, known as the relevant period. The proposed change would therefore also have the effect of making regulated periods for UK parliamentary elections significantly shorter than those for the devolved Parliaments, whose regulated periods would remain at four months. The amendment therefore should not stand because it would undermine the principles of controls and transparency that are placed on election funding and spending, and it would create confusion and disparity.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

As I have already set out, spending limits are an integral part of the political finance framework. They ensure a level of fairness between parties and campaigners. Controls are already in place on the integrity of spending limits—for example, in the case of targeted spending where a cap is placed on third party spending to promote one political party, and joint campaigning, which applies where third party campaigners work together and must all report costs. It is right that where groups work together on a campaign the spending should be accounted for by anyone involved in it, otherwise groups could unfairly attempt to make use of multiple spending limits. Therefore, we are extending the principle of joint campaigning to cover scenarios where political parties and third party campaigners are actively working together on a campaign. That is very different from targeted spending, where a third party targets a political party with their spending, but they do not actually work together on a campaign. It will simply mean that where a political party and third party campaigner are incurring spending and actively campaigning together, the relevant spending for that joint campaign should be accounted for by all groups involved in the spending. That will help to ensure that campaigners are playing by the rules and make it much easier to know who was involved in such campaigns. Of course, it will not stop groups spending separately outside the joint plan in their capacity as an individually recognised third party or political party. Any regulated spending that is undertaken by an individual group and is not part of a joint campaign will need to be reported only by the group incurring the spend.

Furthermore, to create parity with the current rules on joint campaigning between third party campaigners, the requirement to specifically identify relevant spending and spending returns will also be applied to the existing rules on joint campaigning between more than one third party campaigner. It is absolutely right that the rules on transparency of joint campaigning should be as similar as possible across all types of campaigners, to ensure fairness and support compliance. Therefore, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Fleur Anderson]

We oppose part 4 in its entirety. The Minister makes it sound very easy. Parties campaign together and write a joint plan. If they have been a part of it, they declare all the expenses. In practice, that involves a huge amount of red tape and burden, and it is absolutely disproportionate to the effect that the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill—transparency, integrity and freeing up our elections so that everyone can take part and we all know what is happening. There should absolutely be transparency, but there should not be an overly bureaucratic system that will actually suppress freedom of speech.

The clause is a deliberate attempt to silence the trade unions in particular, which is what I will focus on. It is all about the Conservatives rigging democracy in their favour, because they know full well that the clause will silence Labour-affiliated trade unions. It is totally out of step with what we see globally. Only four of the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—the UK, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Slovakia—require third parties to register campaigning activity at election time. Clause 25 would change the joint campaign rules so that organisations campaigning jointly with political parties are collectively liable for the total campaign expenditure of all organisations. No matter what small part or supporting role an organisation might play, it has to declare the full total amount, which will take up all of its campaigning allowance. That will include the political party.

The 2021 report “Regulating Election Finance” by the Committee on Standards in Public Life says:

“When considering calls for greater regulation of non-party campaigning it is important to be mindful of the role of non-party campaigning in the broader ecosystem of democracy and pre-election debate. As the Committee made clear when it first concluded that spending limits for non-party campaigners would be necessary, there is nothing wrong with individuals and organisations sending out explicitly political messages in advance of and during election campaign—‘On the contrary, a free society demands that they should be able to do so, indeed that they should be encouraged to do so.’ The right to campaign is also protected by law through the right to freedom of expression. This should act as a check on ensuring that regulation strikes the right balance.”

We contest that the Bill does not strike the right balance. Who can think of a political party that has strong historical links with external organisations working together—maybe around election time, and maybe for workers’ rights across the whole country—and traditionally campaigning together as a movement for change? That’s right: it is the trade unions. I hope that the Minister has talked to the trade unions about the Bill and understood the impact that it will have on trade union activity in all our constituencies, as well as across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 26 creates a new disqualification order for offenders who intimidate those who contribute to our public life. Political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society; they risk reducing political participation and corroding our democracy. To tackle the problem, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that it would be appropriate to have specific electoral sanctions that reflect the threat posed by the intimidation of candidates and their supporters.

Based on the protecting the debate consultation, the Government committed to applying electoral sanctions to existing offences of intimidatory behaviour. That is precisely what the new disqualification order achieves. It is a five-year ban on standing for, holding, and being elected to public office. It can be imposed on those convicted of intimidating a candidate, elected office holder or campaigner. After all, it is simply not right that those who try to damage political participation through intimidation are allowed to participate in the very same process that they tried to undermine.

The disqualification order can be applied to a wide range of intimidatory criminal offences such as, but not limited to, stalking, harassment, common assault and threats to kill. For the disqualification order to be imposed, the intimidatory offence must be aggravated by hostility related to, for example, a candidate. That ensures that the disqualification is imposed only in instances where political participation is genuinely at risk.

The court that determines conviction for the intimidatory offence will also impose the disqualification order. Where the court is satisfied that the offence is aggravated by hostility, then it must impose the disqualification order, except where the court considers that there are particular circumstances that would make it unjust to do so. This sentencing model strikes the right balance between ensuring a sufficient deterrent against political intimidation, while maintaining the crucial role of the judiciary in determining the most appropriate penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the individual offence and in light of the specific circumstances of the offender.

The clause also gives effect to schedule 8, which lists the offences that, when committed by an offender with the necessary hostility, can trigger the imposition of a five-year disqualification order. There is no single offence of intimidation in criminal law, so the schedule lists a wide range of offences of an intimidatory nature in respect of which the new disqualification order can be imposed.

The list is based on a core list of offences suggested by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, such as common assault, harassment, stalking or sending communications with intent to cause distress and anxiety. Following public consultation, and engagement with key stakeholders such as the Crown Prosecution Service and the Electoral Commission, we have broadened the list to include four intimidatory offences.

It is important to cast our net widely in selecting intimidatory offences for the schedule; that will help to avoid a situation where a person commits an offence against a candidate with the clear intention of intimidating them but, because the offence is not included in the schedule, the new disqualification order cannot apply. That is why the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I have agreed that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood can make her remarks while seated.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I welcome not just clause 26, but the whole of part 5 of the legislation. As shadow democracy Minister, I have had the unfortunate pleasure of having to take part in many debates about intimidation of candidates; I am sure all Members will be aware of some of the accounts.

We know that many of our colleagues are intimidated, and many candidates of our party have experienced intimidation and threats. It is devastating that we should be debating this clause so soon after the murder of our colleague, Sir David Amess, who was on the Panel of Chairs and chaired many debates on issues like this. I must be honest: I did not expect when I stood for election in 2015 that I would lose two colleagues to murder in such a short space of time. An attack on an MP, and an attack on a candidate, is an attack on democracy. The Opposition therefore welcome part 5 of the Bill.

I am making remarks about clauses 26 to 34 so that I do not have to bother for future clauses. My only concern is that some of the legislation does not go far enough. Many of the people who might go on to intimidate candidates, agents or campaigners might not be put off by the idea of not being able to stand for elected office for five years, because many of the people who commit these crimes are not interested in participating in our democratic processes—they are, in fact, opposed to the democratic process in its entirety.

As the Minister finds her feet in this new role, I would be very happy to open a dialogue with her to explore ways in which there might be a consensus across the House to ensure that our democracy, which we all take part in and support, can be strengthened so that we do not see the acts of violence and intimidation that we have seen in recent years deter good people from entering public life.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 27

Vacation of office etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

While those in public life are often the targets of intimidation and abuse, I regret to say that they can also be the perpetrators of intimidation and abuse. For example, it is possible that an MP or a local authority mayor or councillor will be sanctioned by the new intimidation disqualification order. They will be treated no differently from anybody else and will be disqualified from holding elected office.

The clause sets out the process by which the office holder’s office is vacated; this is no more than three months after the officeholder receives the intimidation disqualification order. During the period prior to the office being vacated, the officeholder is suspended from performing the functions of their office. However, if the officeholder makes a successful appeal against their conviction or sentence before that three-month period ends, the office is not vacated and consequently they can resume their office.

The process strikes the correct balance between, on the one hand, the right of an offender to appeal and, on the other, the smooth vacation of office and a swift resolution. A swift resolution provides certainty for electors and ensures that there is an office holder in place who can discharge the responsibilities of that office. This is also consistent with the existing process for vacating office outlined in the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Candidates etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The new disqualification order will be applied only when intimidatory offences are motivated by hostility towards certain groups of people. This clause defines the first group that requires this additional protection from abuse and intimidation. Candidates at any election, including candidates named on lists, will be protected by the new disqualification order. Future candidates—people whose intention to stand as a candidate has been declared, but whose formal candidacy has not yet begun—are also included in this clause. Substitutes and nominees who are expected to fill vacancies in Northern Ireland will also be protected by the new disqualification order. Candidates, future candidates, substitutes and nominees all play a vital role in participating in our democracy and standing for election. That is why they deserve the additional protection from intimidation provided by the new disqualification order, and it is why I commend this clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Holders of relevant elective offices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 29 builds on the previous clause and sets out another group of people whom the new disqualification order will protect: holders of elected office, such as—but not limited to—MPs, councillors and mayors. Given the high-profile nature of their roles, elected officeholders are sadly all too often the targets of intimidatory, threatening, or abusive words or behaviour. We cannot allow intimidation to force those public servants to stand down from their offices or not stand for re-election. Banning those convicted of an intimidatory offence from standing for election and potentially standing against the very same people they abused is an important step. That is why I commend this clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Campaigners

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The previous two clauses extended the protection of the new disqualification order to, broadly, candidates and elected officeholders. However, we must not stop there. Campaigners, from grassroots volunteers through to party employees, play a vital role in our democratic process, and the intimidation and abuse to which they are subject is abhorrent. Therefore, an intimidatory offence that is motivated by hostility towards campaigners can also trigger the new disqualification order.

Unlike candidates, there is no single definition of a campaigner. For the purpose of this clause, we have used a reasonably broad definition that includes individuals who are a recognised third party campaigner, an accredited campaigner for a recall petition or a permitted participant in a referendum, or who are involved in the management of a local referendum campaign. Individuals who are employed or engaged by the aforementioned people to carry out campaigning activities are also considered campaigners. This definition includes campaigners who undertake relevant campaigning activities at any time of year, not only during a specific election period, to reflect the fact that campaigning—particularly online campaigning—takes place outside of formal election periods. Unfortunately, intimidation and abuse also affects campaigners at any time of year, not only during election periods.

Anybody can potentially be a campaigner, including volunteers, and the disqualification order must protect campaigners from intimidation in the same way as it protects MPs. For that reason, I commend this clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Election etc of a person to the House of Commons who is subject to a disqualification order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The new disqualification order, which we have already debated, disqualifies offenders from being elected to various offices. This clause ensures that this disqualification applies to the House of Commons. It specifies that if an offender who is subject to an intimidation disqualification order is elected to the House of Commons, their election will be void. Other relevant elected offices already have provisions that state that an election will be void because of disqualification. The House of Commons has no such provision, and we therefore need to provide specifically for that possibility.

This clause is reasonably technical in nature, but it has an important role to play in ensuring that the new intimidation disqualification order works smoothly. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Power to amend Schedule 8

[Patrick Grady]

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 32, page 44, line 12, leave out “may by” and insert

“must consult with such persons as the Minster considers appropriate before making”.

This amendment empowers the Secretary of State to consult broadly before making regulations under clause 32 to amend Schedule 8.

[Patrick Grady]

This relatively technical amendment is based on the written evidence and suggested amendments submitted by the Law Society of Scotland, which I am sure Committee members are familiar with and have read in detail. Schedule 8 provides the list of offences that disqualify offenders for elected office, including offences under the law in Scotland, which in a lot of these areas is determined by the devolved Scottish Parliament, so we think it is pretty simple and appropriate that the clause places a duty on Ministers to “consult with” relevant persons as appropriate before making statutory instruments.

A lot of themes that have come up in the course of our deliberations are about the need for enhanced scrutiny and consultation. Indeed, the Minister strongly defended the role of consultation—as opposed to seeking consent from the devolved Assemblies, which we are not asking for in this amendment—in a debate on a previous clause. I look forward to her saying that the amendment would be overly bureaucratic and delay the process and therefore is not necessary.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. If he already knows what I am going to say, and if we have had this debate multiple times, it raises the question of why he chose to table the amendment. Nevertheless, I will speak to the clause and his amendment.

The purpose of clause 32 is to future-proof the new disqualification order so that it remains relevant and can continue to apply to offences of an intimidatory nature. For example, the nature of electoral campaigning is evolving as online campaigning increases in significance, which unfortunately means that the nature of intimidation and abuse is also evolving and shifting online. It is possible that new online intimidatory offences will be created. For example, a Law Commission report in July recommended the creation of a more modern harm-based communications offence. If this proposed offence became law, we might want to make it possible for the intimidation disqualification order to be imposed in relation to that offence where the necessary hostility was established. That is why the clause enables Ministers to add, amend or remove offences from the list of intimidatory offences in schedule 8. Any statutory instrument made using this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate before making use of the regulation-making powers to amend the list of intimidatory offences in schedule 8. This is not necessary, as the hon. Gentleman knew I would say. The Secretary of State will be able to seek and consider the views of such persons as he considers appropriate when relevant without the need for a legal requirement to do so—this is the normal business of government. As previously stated, the clause already requires that any statutory instrument laid using these powers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise and decide whether to accept any proposed changes to schedule 8. The Government will therefore not accept the amendment, as we believe that it is unnecessary. To ensure that the new disqualification order evolves in the same way that intimidatory behaviour and criminal offences evolve, the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Patrick Grady]

I do not think that was a massive surprise. The Minister is right to say that it is important that the legislation is future-proofed. The Scottish Parliament has a proud record—as indeed does the Senedd Cymru—of being in advance of this place sometimes in terms of the legislation it has brought forward and the kinds of behaviour it has gone on to deem a criminal offence; in fact, a recent piece of hate crime legislation might well contain examples to add to the disqualifying offences in the Bill.

In an attempt to strike a note of consensus, I will take in good faith the Minister’s commitment to monitor the development of legislation north and south of the border and that the consultations will happen. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Interpretation of Part

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clause helps to interpret and clarify two terms that are used frequently in this part of the Bill. The first is “disqualification order”, which refers to the new five-year intimidation disqualification set out in clause 26. The second is “relevant elective office”. The list of offices determines the offices that an offender subject to the new disqualification order cannot stand for, be elected to or hold. It also determines the elected office holders who are protected by the new disqualification order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clause gives effect to schedule 9, which contains minor and consequential amendments resulting from part 5 of the Bill.

The new intimidation disqualification order must be enforceable. Offenders who are banned from standing for election must be prevented from doing so. It is already a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, to provide false information on a candidate nomination form. All candidates must declare that they are not disqualified from being elected. That will be a sufficient deterrent for most offenders banned by the new disqualification order, but it is possible that some will try to stand for election regardless. That is why schedule 9 amends the rules for Northern Ireland, local and UK parliamentary elections. It provides returning officers with the power to hold a nomination paper invalid where a candidate is disqualified by virtue of the new intimidation disqualification order. Returning officers are only expected to hold nomination papers invalid where they are certain, based on information provided or otherwise available to the returning officer, that a candidate is disqualified.

Schedule 9 also makes minor changes to the process for vacating various elected offices and, by amending the Armed Forces Act 2006, allows the new disqualification order to be imposed by military courts on an offender who is subject to service law. Schedule 9 is important for the enforcement of the new disqualification order and for ensuring that the disqualification fits smoothly and consistently with all elected offices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Slough Borough Council

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Written Statements

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

Our local councils play a vital frontline role in our communities and our democracy. Everyone in the House recognises what they do and the importance of making sure they are able to contribute to our levelling-up agenda. We need our councils to be able to make our towns and cities great places to live, where everyone, no matter what their circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive and can take advantage of effective and efficient service delivery. We need our councils to be able to support our most vulnerable citizens, for example through children’s services and adult social care. In doing so, we need councils to make the most of every penny they receive from hard-pressed taxpayers to secure better outcomes. This will build confidence and trust between local authorities, local councillors, and the communities they serve. That is why the situation at Slough Borough Council is of such concern.



Slough Borough Council was one of a small number of local authorities to request exceptional financial support during the covid-19 pandemic. The Government agreed in principle to this request subject to the outcome of an external assurance review. This review considered the council’s financial position and the strength of its wider governance arrangements, and provided an assessment of the council’s ability to achieve financial sustainability without further recourse to public funds.



The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) led on the financial aspects of the review. Jim Taylor, former chief executive of Salford City Council, Trafford Council and Rochdale Borough Council, led on governance. I would like to thank Jim Taylor and CIPFA for their hard work. Copies of the reports have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.



The reports paint a deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, of a breakdown in scrutiny and accountability, and of a dysfunctional culture at Slough Borough Council. The council’s internal controls and processes are inadequate, and the overview and scrutiny function is not equipped to operate effectively. Service delivery is hampered by ineffective core corporate functions such as IT and HR, and the residents of Slough are poorly served by the council’s struggling revenues and benefits service. The council’s contract management is weak and has resulted in rushed procurement, missed exit opportunities, and has delivered poor value for money. There is little evidence that the council understands the entirety of its commercial investments and their impact on its finances. The staffing structure lacks the capacity and capability to deliver on the challenges the council faces without external help. It is only very recently that senior members have grasped the seriousness and urgency of this situation and established it is not solely a result of financial accounting assumptions. The council cannot demonstrate a track record of making difficult decisions or of taking decisive action to bring about improvements. The reports confirm that, as indicated in the section 114 notice issued by the council earlier this year, the council’s expected requirement for additional financial support in 2021-22 has risen from £15.2 million to over £100 million.



The review shows unequivocally that Slough Borough Council has failed to comply with its best value duty of continuous improvement, as required by the Local Government Act 1999. The financial challenge is acute, and the review has concluded that the council cannot become financially self-sustaining without considerable Government support.



To quote the review:

“An authority struggling to comply with its best value duty displays the following characteristics:



an overreliance on interim officers

a lack of corporate capacity

many inadequate internal processes

signs of distrust among and between councillors and senior officers

the absence of effective scrutiny, transparency, and public consultation

insufficient capacity to achieve the change required

instances of poor-quality advice to members

a lack of understanding of how some meetings should be conducted ? In some cases, members not understanding their role

significant unknown past liabilities yet to be determined.

Slough Borough Council has been displaying these characteristics over past years until present day and has failed its best value duty despite the concerted efforts in the last few months. It is unable to resolve the difficulties on its own.”



Expressed in formal terms, the Secretary of State is satisfied that Slough Borough Council is failing to comply with its best value duty and he is considering exercising his powers of intervention to secure compliance with the 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 Slough Borough Council, asking for representations on the external assurance review and on the proposed intervention package. That letter also recognises the hard work of many of the staff at Slough Borough Council.



The proposed package is centred on the appointment of commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for a minimum of three years. The proposal is for the council—under the oversight of the commissioners—to prepare and implement an improvement plan, and report on the delivery of that plan to the commissioners every six months.



In detail, the council would be required to:

Complete, within three months, an assessment of the functional capability of all service areas to identify the gaps in capacity and capability.

Prepare and agree, within six months, action plans to the commissioners’ satisfaction to address any functional shortcomings.

Undertake any actions the commissioners require to avoid incidents of poor governance or financial mismanagement that would jeopardise the council’s ability to meet its best value duty.

Prepare and agree, within three months, a fully resourced improvement plan which should include action plans to deliver: financial sustainability; improvements in democratic services, including the audit and corporate governance functions; a scrutiny function that is fit for purpose; improvements in internal audit; properly functioning procurement and contract management functions; improvements in the council’s IT function; an officer structure and scheme of delegation which provide sufficient resources to implement the improvement plan.

It is also proposed that Slough Borough Council will:

Devise and implement a programme of cultural change to rebuild trust between officers and members within six months.

Following the review of Council companies, within six months consider the roles and case for ongoing operation of each subsidiary company—except Slough Children First.

Take steps to enable better and evidence-based decision making, including enhancing data and insight functions.

I hope and expect Slough Borough Council will take the lead on this path to improvement. Given the gravity of the review’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 commissioners of all executive functions associated with:

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

The strategic financial management of the council.

The oversight of collection of revenues and the distribution of benefits by the council.

All non-executive functions relating to the appointment and dismissal of statutory officers, and the designation of those persons as statutory officers at the council to the commissioners.

These powers are for use should the council not satisfy the commissioners in their improvement processes. 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 the required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.



The commissioners will report to the Secretary of State at six monthly intervals on progress. They will also work closely with Trevor Doughty, the children’s services commissioner for Slough Borough Council already in place and reporting to the Secretary of State for Education.

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 Slough’s vulnerable children and families continue to be delivered to an acceptable standard. Similarly, the commissioners will be mindful of the interests of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the consultancy support available from the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the revenue and benefits service.



We are inviting representations from the council on the report and the Secretary of State’s proposals by Friday 5 November. Given the conclusion of the review that

“Improvement for Slough Borough Council will rely on stability in political leadership, and it would be advisable that the council moves towards a four yearly election cycle at the earliest opportunity”,

we are also seeking views on 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 Slough, 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.



Government do not take these steps lightly and recognise and respect the role of local councils in our communities and our democracy. Slough Borough Council is a rare case of failure. Most local authorities in England have a good record of service delivery, transparency, probity, scrutiny, and accountability. It is a record worth protecting. We will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to root out practices that do it down.



Finally, I urge council leaders across the country to read these reports. I know the local government sector—officers and members—will be saddened by the news that a council is failing. I would encourage all to make sure that they are not making the same mistakes as those that are described in this review. Local people deserve better than this from their local councils.

[HCWS353]