Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress her Department has made on planning reform.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

9. What changes her Department is making to the national planning policy framework.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.

[Dr Evans]

Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.

Representation of the People

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Government for bringing these regulations to the House more than six months before the next scheduled set of elections. It is a benchmark of good protocol and good practice in the electoral community to bring such changes forward with good notice, because of course they affect electoral administrators up and down the country. We did not see that under the last Government, with legislation often considered by the House just a couple of months before administrators were having to implement it. I therefore thank the Government for the good notice that they are giving today.

While I welcome the regulations and will support them, there are still some huge gaps in the accessibility of ID for voting. The Electoral Commission’s early research suggests that those who are unemployed, those from lower socioeconomic groups and disabled people are struggling to access ID that enables them to vote. That is reflected in the statistics we have seen from the last general election.

The Electoral Commission, which is our independent regulator, did an awful lot of good work at the general election to ensure that public awareness of the need for ID reached the vast majority of people. I believe that 87% of people were aware of the policy, but awareness fell in certain groups, particularly among young people, where it was just 71%, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, at 76%. I call on the commission to continue to focus on the groups that are more difficult to reach, and I call on the Government to support the commission to be able to do that work so that we do not see a repeat of the general election in July, where about 16,000 people did not have the required ID to vote and were turned away at the ballot box. That is a travesty.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I am interested in the report that has come out, which I have not had a chance to see. I believe that Northern Ireland has had voter ID since 2003—that system has been in place for two decades—so we have a direct comparison within the UK of voters in the general election, from which we can learn. Is there any evidence to suggest that Northern Ireland struggled? Given that it is two decades ahead of England in this case, would not it be interesting to see the comparative data so that the Government can take that forward and learn from Northern Ireland?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is testing my memory: I have read comparative data on Northern Ireland, but that was some time ago. I believe that it took several electoral cycles in Northern Ireland for information to be understood by the electorate and used more confidently.

The way in which the free voter ID cards are issued in Northern Ireland is different from Great Britain, and that brings me to voter authority certificates. One thing that I felt disappointed about at the last general election was the lower than expected take-up of those certificates. That might be partly because they were not made as appealing as they could be, and that was not necessarily about the application process.

I believe that in Northern Ireland people get a plastic card that can be used as ID for things other than voting, whereas the voter authority certificate in Great Britain is a piece of paper, which someone who is, for example, 19 or 20 years old will not want to take with them down to the local nightclub to try and gain access. The small plastic card, which is more durable for other purposes as well, had a higher take-up. Will the Minister respond with her thoughts about whether voter authority certificates could be expanded or developed, perhaps learning from parts of the United Kingdom where they have had higher take-up?

In the public opinion data from the general election, we learned that 4% of people who did not vote said that their decision was related to the voter ID requirement. My concern is that that research suggests there are people who are not turning up at polling stations for that reason. The data that the Government can access is from those who turn up at polling stations and are turned away, but I think that we are missing a lot of people who never left the house. Certainly my experience on polling day was of meeting voters who knew they did not have access to ID—perhaps they did not know about the voter authority certificate—and had decided to stay at home.

I approach this in a positive way and want to put recommendations and suggestions to the Minister on how we can improve access to democracy, which is incredibly important. I am pleased to hear that the Government will review the list of accepted forms of ID. I plead with the Minister to look seriously at ID that is accessible to younger voters, those with disabilities and those from ethnic minorities in addition to the veteran card, whose inclusion I very much welcome.

As the original legislation passed through Committee, one thing that was debated was whether registered voters who have ID and can prove their identity could make an attestation at the polling station on behalf of someone who does not have accepted ID, which is known as vouching. For example, we have Mr and Mrs Smith, and while Mrs Smith has a driving licence, Mr Smith does not, and neither of them have passports. They could go to the polling station together, where she could attest that her husband, who is with her, is who he says he is—the entitled voter—and use one ID to vouch for the whole household to ensure that he is not disenfranchised. I came across such a case in my constituency at the election.

As has been said, turnout at the general election fell below 60%, which was the lowest level since 2001. It was down 7.6 percentage points on the 2019 general election. That should give us all pause for thought. I believe that we have a crisis of voter participation in this country, with voters who are entitled and registered to vote choosing not to vote. The crisis is not people turning up at the polling station, pretending to be someone they are not and taking more votes than they are entitled to; it is those who are entitled to vote not voting. When turnout declines, the strength our democracy declines with it. I am pleased to hear the Government talk about strengthening participation in democracy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about that in winding up.

May I ask the Minister whether she plans to return to the House—and if so, whether she has an idea of the timescale—to add more IDs to the list of acceptable IDs? Does she agree that to strengthen democracy we should be looking at how to increase voter participation and not placing additional barriers to people taking part?

On that point, the electoral roll continues to be deeply inaccurate. We now have the technology to look seriously at automatic voter registration, and the state knows who lives where and who is entitled to vote, so is there a way in which we can ensure that our electoral roll is far more accurate and reflects where people live so that it is easier for people to vote at a general election?

Employment Rights Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We have already been working with businesses while bringing forward the Bill, and we will continue to do that through the consultations. We have recognised probation periods, for example, but we do not think that people should not have rights two years into their employment.

We are listening, but I say to Conservative Members, who promised employment Bill after employment Bill and then never delivered them, that the people of this country deserve secure fairness at work, and this Labour Government will deliver it. Almost 9 million employees will benefit from protection against unfair dismissal from day one, 1.7 million will benefit from new policies on flexible working, and up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave. Thousands of pregnant women and mothers will benefit from new maternity protections, and tens of thousands of fathers and partners will be brought into the scope of paternity leave. We will deliver a genuine living wage that matches the cost of living.

In total, more than 10 million people will benefit from Labour’s plan in every corner of this country, so if you are in casual work, unable to rely on guaranteed hours, this Labour Government are delivering for you. If you are working hard on low pay and struggling to make ends meet, this Government are delivering for you. This is a Government back in the service of working people.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Can the Deputy Prime Minister define “working people”?

[Angela Rayner]

The Conservatives had 14 years to support the working people of this—[Interruption.]

[Dr Evans]

Will she give way?

[Angela Rayner]

Will the hon. Member listen to my response? I gave way to him. For 14 years, the Tories promised employment Bills and an industrial strategy, and in 14 years they delivered the highest cost of living for the working people of this country. It will be this Labour Government who deliver for them.

This is a Government back in the service of working people, building an economy fit for the future and making work pay. For the first time ever, we have instructed the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living when setting the minimum wage, because everyone deserves a proper living wage for a proper day’s work. We have already moved to protect 4 million self-employed workers from late payments with the new fair payment code, and we have already encouraged employers not to use the ineffective and failed minimum service laws, which did not stop a single day of industrial action while in force, before we repeal them for good. That is a bold start, but we are going further. The UK labour market is not delivering for workers or businesses, and it holds back the UK economy. We know that things have to change. The Bill marks a momentous opportunity to chart a new route to growth—one built from the bottom up and the middle out—alongside the £63 billion of investment into the UK that was announced last week. Higher growth, higher wages and higher productivity—a new partnership between workers and business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.

[Dr Luke Evans]

When it comes to risk, is my hon. Friend concerned about the timing of this legislation if, as reported, the Budget raises national insurance for those businesses? Is that yet another risk in addition to this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that our substantial reform package sets out clearly and transparently the changes that are being introduced and what people are expected to pay. It could not be clearer than it is in the legislation, which is one of my reasons for wanting it to proceed as quickly as possible. When there are issues, we are keen to look at them and, where we can, take action, but the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is designed to improve transparency and reduce problems, and I am sure that it will do that once it has completed its passage here and in the other place.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

5. Whether he has made an estimate of the number of planning authorities that do not have an up-to-date local plan.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

At the end of March 2024, 110 local planning authorities—a third of the total—had adopted a local plan in the past five years, while 291 had plans that were more than five years old. Of those, more than half are making progress towards updating their plans. The Government have made it clear that authorities should continue to update their plans because that is the best way to deliver development that is in the interests of local communities.

[Dr Evans]

My Liberal Democrat-run local council is one of those without an up-to-date local plan. In fact, it has now delayed its plan until 2026, which means that places such as Burbage have housing without full protection. That puts pressure on our GP services, our school places and even our roads. What more can the Government do to persuade Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council to ensure that its plan is established and updated so that my residents have the required protections?

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend has raised this matter in the Chamber before, and it is a great example of why it is so important that Bosworth has this Conservative Member of Parliament to highlight the challenges and failures of the Liberal Democrat council. Ultimately, the Government will not hesitate to take action against councils that are not fulfilling their obligations. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done so over the past few months, and we will continue to do so, because we expect councils to do their job and put their plans in place. When Liberal Democrat councils fail to do that, we will call them out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

The housing infrastructure fund continues to transform very difficult, challenging and unviable areas of the country. It is being spent at pace, and it will continue to be so. We expect it to be able to transform more parts of the country over the years ahead.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

19. What assessment he has made of the role of neighbourhood planning in the national planning policy framework.

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

The Government recognise the time and commitment that communities put into neighbourhood plans. Our recent updates to the national planning policy framework mean that neighbourhood plans meeting their identified housing requirement are now better protected from speculative development, including through the additional reforms coming in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

[Dr Evans]

My Lib Dem-run borough council still does not have an up-to-date local plan. Every day that passes means that we are open to speculative housing developments without the right infrastructure such as GP practices and roads and those kind of things. My communities are fantastic at producing neighbourhood plans, but they are ridden over roughshod in places such as Desford, where housing has been put in where the community does not want it. Will the Minister look at increasing the priority given to neighbourhood plans when communities and local planning authorities do not have an up-to-date local plan?

[Lee Rowley]

It is hugely frustrating when local plans are not in place. As my hon. Friend indicated, in his area the Lib Dem council has failed to do that, which is letting residents down. There have been changes as a result of the national planning policy framework giving additional protection through neighbourhood plans, but district councils and those with planning responsibilities need to get their plans in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the fund has helped many communities in need, particularly in Liverpool. He and other Liverpool MPs have been assiduous in making the case for its continuation and I have passed that on to colleagues.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

T4. Leicester-shire MPs had plenty of time last week with two Ministers from the Department—the levelling-up Minister and the local government Minister—to discuss the funding and structure of our county council. To follow up, will the Minister for local government commit to meet the county council leadership to ensure that the funding and the formula that goes with it are improved for the future?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his positive engagement, alongside that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who came to see me to discuss this issue last week. I would of course be delighted to meet the leadership of Leicestershire County Council with my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and his colleagues. Through the good offices of our hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, I met informally with Councillor Louise Richardson, the cabinet lead on health, last week.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Felicity Buchan]

I will go into detail on it. Give me one minute and I will go through all those scenarios.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

As Members of Parliament, we are always having to declare our interests if we think there is going to be a conflict. I asked a question yesterday about veterans’ health. I am the honorary president of the Royal British Legion. When discussing such topics, particularly when in front of the media, we know exactly where there could be a conflict of interest and therefore make the determination that it should be declared. We should therefore allow the legislation to stay as it is, because the distinction is clear between speaking on behalf of a public body and speaking as an individual elected to represent a point of view.

[Felicity Buchan]

I agree. That is the distinction between representing a public body and speaking as an individual, even if someone is an elected councillor.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Q There has been much discussion with other witnesses about the need for clause 4. I have a question for Jonathan Turner: do you agree that clause 4 is necessary, and do you think it is compatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights?

Jonathan Turner: Certainly parts of it are necessary. Otherwise, you have the Leicester City Council type of approach of saying, “We are supporting boycotts. We want goods from a particular territory to be boycotted as far as the law allows.”

That is deeply problematic. First, it has the same impact on community cohesion as any other BDS measure that targets a particular country and indirectly targets a particular ethnicity. Secondly, it creates a degree of confusion and difficulty for the staff who have to implement it: they have to work out what the law does allow in terms of boycotting, they have to find out what the facts are, they have to go to the lawyers, and there will be arguments about it. The whole thing becomes a mess and discourages them from accepting certain tenders. They are further discouraged by the fact that they might offend some of the councillors who were so vehement about passing the measure. It has a chilling effect on the public authority and the staff who are left dealing with it. That is what I see as the primary target of this provision.

As to whether it conflicts with human rights requirements: no, it does not. It only binds public authorities. It does not stop individual members saying, “I support BDS. I don’t like what such and such a state is doing.” It only stops a public authority saying that. Public authorities, as we know from the House of Lords decision in the Aston Cantlow case, do not have human rights under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. I think that is why they have chosen to do this by reference to section 6 of the Human Rights Act and its definition of “public authority”.

[The Chair]

Mr Barrett, is there anything you want to add?

Steven Barrett: No, because I cannot answer the necessary question because I think that would be a personal and political opinion. I can say that it is lawful and that I agree that it would not breach article 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does anyone have anything to add to that? No? Okay. I will come next to Dr Luke Evans.

[Dr Evans]

Q All of you were very clear to set out your position on BDS for the individual—namely, that you think it is right. I think everyone here would agree that it is an individual choice. The Bill is about public bodies and their position on BDS. Does your organisation support the idea that public bodies should be able to choose to carry out BDS—yes or no? I will just go down the panel for answers.

Yasmine Ahmed: What is very clear is that our organisation says that public bodies have to discharge their responsibilities under business and human rights of the UNGPs, and they have a responsibility to comply with international law. That is the very point that we are trying to make here. Let us set aside BDS, because what the Government are doing with this Bill is stifling the ability of public bodies to discharge the Government’s own responsibilities and obligations under the UNGPs and under international law. That is what this Bill is doing. That is the effect of the Bill and that is the problem with the Bill.

I wholly agree with Peter’s position on BDS, as does Human Rights Watch, and the right of individuals and the importance of people being able to advocate for the rights of Palestinians as they advocate for the rights of other individuals, but that is not what we are talking about here, because the effect of this Bill—actually, the crunch of this Bill—is that it stops the Government complying with their own responsibilities and international obligations.

[Dr Evans]

Q Very quickly, to come back on that point, do you think that foreign policy is the remit of local authorities or national Government?

Yasmine Ahmed: What I think, as I have said, is that when a public body is making financial decisions on procurement investment, it should take account—it has to take account—of the human rights and environmental implications of what it is doing. That is the answer.

[Dr Evans]

It is an answer to a separate question.

[The Chair]

Q I am sorry, but you have had two questions. Very briefly, because we are running very short of time, I wonder if the other two witnesses want to add any brief point to that.

Peter Frankental: I will just add that a decision by a public body not to procure with a tenderer should not necessarily be seen in terms of BDS. It is not necessarily a boycott; it is a means of effecting due diligence. If it is done in a way that is proportionate and on a case-by-case basis, as the vast majority would be, I would not see a problem with it.

I will just add something from the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill. It is made absolutely clear in the impact assessment that there is no definitive evidence linking public procurement and investment to discrimination on grounds of race, religion or belief. That is set out in three paragraphs of the impact assessment—paragraphs 60, 61 and 64. So, the main premise behind this Bill, that it is necessary to prevent public bodies from engaging in antisemitism, is not compellingly evidenced, according to the Government’s impact assessment.

Only one procurement case is given, that of Leicester City Council, which took a decision not to procure with Israeli settlements. That was challenged in the courts on grounds of a breach of the public sector’s equality duty, and the Court of Appeal found that Leicester City Council had not breached its equality duty, was not being antisemitic and was mindful of community cohesion, and that its decision not to procure from settlements was based on a respected body of international opinion, including the UN, the EU and the UK’s own policy on not recognising the settlements as legal. It is perfectly possible for public bodies to take these decisions without that being seen within the sweeping form of BDS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

Q Following on from that very point, your two papers make the point very strongly that the Bill contradicts, or at least strongly questions, the British commitment to international law. Could you expand slightly on that because, as we all know, the British Government are firmly committed to international law? Are you suggesting that this questions at least the Government’s commitment to international law?

Richard Hermer: Yes. I am mindful that we have only 15 minutes, probably now 10. Can I just give you a brief framework, because I think I have to disagree with the outline that Mr Barrett gave you? International law has always been key to this country, and very broadly speaking it operates on two levels. The first is on the international plane. That is our obligation to comply with international law at the international level. Secondly, in so far as it has been incorporated into English domestic law, the Government have to comply with it on a domestic level.

It is the international law level that I flagged up first in my written advice. As a country, we have always played a leading role in upholding and, indeed, creating international law. Both main parties have a proud history of that. It has fallen into slight disrepute in more recent times as we have had some legislation that expressly seeks to avoid our international law obligations, but generally speaking, that is something we can be proud of. There are two aspects in which that is relevant: first, because the Government have contended that this does comply with our international law obligations, and secondly, because the Committee will no doubt wish to ascertain whether it in fact does or there is a risk that it does not. I hope that answers your question, Mr David.

[Dr Evans]

Q We heard from a witness in the session the other day about comparisons. His position was that the Bill is relatively somewhere in the middle compared with somewhere like France or some of the states in the US. Given your experience, what is your thought on how this fits into the international comparisons?

Richard Hermer: There are some examples of American states passing what I would describe as more extreme versions of this. France is interesting because the Strasbourg court has looked at France on two occasions and the most recent one upheld that its laws were incompatible with article 10. There is not much else out there by way of example. Israel has its own laws on BDS. I am not sure where that takes us. Ultimately, Parliament has to look at this Bill on its face. How it stands up in comparison does not tell us anything about international law—it might help with the context, but beyond that, I am not sure that it would necessarily help the Committee.

[Ms Qaisar]

Q Thank you for joining us today. Clause 4 has been referred to as a gagging clause by some. Why can it be seen as so problematic?

Richard Hermer: I am firmly of the view that it is incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated into our law via the Human Rights Act. I have listened carefully to the views of others, not least the way that it has been explained by the Minister, and I respectfully disagree.

There are two elements to this. First, who does it bind? There is no dispute that it does not bind a public authority per se, but it would undoubtedly bind a leader of a council or a vice-chancellor of a university—that is, the full array of public authorities or bodies acting as a quasi-public authority. Certainly, it is incapable of engaging the free speech of those individuals. Secondly, there is an analogue to the free speech of the individual in article 10, which is also the right of the public to have information. This engages article 10 in both those ways.

Once we have engagement of article 10, it then falls to the Government to justify it under article 10(2) I have set out in my first opinion the text of article 10(2). There are a number of hurdles that a Government would have to pass. We should also remember that this is not just in the context of BDS; this is in the context of any country and any conflict. I set that out in paragraph 34 of the opinion that the Labour party published. In order to establish that there was no breach of article 10, it would need to be shown that the restrictions were necessary

“in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

It is almost impossible to see how there could be a justification here. As matters stand, this would be deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Q Councillors Deering and Jamieson, this question is to both of you. Councillor Deering, you said the point around pensions should not be political. In your experience as councillors, how much of an increase have you seen in talk about, for example, previous slavery, the environmental side, Israel and Palestine, China and Russia? How much more of this debate is happening at a local council level, as opposed to 10 years ago? Was this debate happening then? Is it becoming more prevalent?

Councillor Deering: Well, I do not quite go back 10 years in local government, so I cannot quite answer for that period. I became a county councillor in 2017, I think, but I have been involved in the finance and performance side more or less ever since day one. I would say that the answer to your question is: a bit. Not only is there slightly more of this discussion because of general issues and political issues, but also in part because all councils are under financial pressure and every now and again there is a view expressed by someone—from wherever they might be on the political spectrum—that, “There seems to be an awful lot of money in the pension fund, and can’t that somehow be used?” Obviously that is inappropriate. In our council, everybody understands that, but it is a frustration that is expressed from time to time. Coming back to your question, yes, there is a little bit more of what you asked about, but maybe that is because there are an increasing number of events in the world that might lead to the thought being ventilated.

Councillor Jamieson: The modern world—with the increase in social media, the ability for electronic petitions and so forth—has meant that councils are subject to more petitioning and more demand from groups of the public. It is easier to put these things on the agenda than it was in the past, so I think it is inevitable that we are seeing more of whatever it is that we are talking about compared with 10 years ago; in fact, I can go back 14 years, so compared with 14 years ago.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q I will pick up on a point that has kind of been covered already. Do you have anything further to add on the issue of freedom of speech, or any further concerns that this Bill will undermine local democracy by restricting what councils and councillors can say and do? You are very fortunate in your area if you have not been impacted by some of the more contentious issues that the Bill covers, but I have some concerns around freedom of speech for local representatives and undermining local government autonomy. Is there anything else you want to add?

Councillor Deering: Personally, I am a very big believer in freedom of speech, and just freedom. If I might make a huge point, it is one of the things that this country is pretty good at, actually. I am very strongly in favour of it and would not want to see it impinged, but we all need to find a way to work together and achieve objectives. I repeat that our institution is not particularly vexed about the issue that underlies your question; we can see it, but I do not know that we are vexed by it.

Councillor Jamieson: If I can come back to this—I am in danger of repeating myself—I do think it is important that there are some tweaks to the legislation. One is that writing the minutes of a meeting that reflect a view expressed in the meeting should not be a reason to be referred to the Pensions Regulator or for judicial review. Also, if the reference to a decision having been “influenced” was changed to “substantially influenced”, that would make life a lot easier.

I also have a big concern with judicial reviews. My biggest area of experience with judicial reviews is in the planning system, where they can be hugely expensive and time-consuming. I really do not like the fact that councils will be subject to judicial reviews, which will make vexatious JRs and so forth much easier. We are covered by the Pensions Regulator, and if the legislation were changed to say that it is the Pensions Regulator that makes the decision, and the Pensions Regulator could then be judicially reviewed if somebody felt it had not made its decision correctly, that would reduce the risk of vexatious JRs. That should also be linked to who can claim that they have been impacted. At the moment, pretty much anybody in the UK is in a household where there is a ratepayer; does that mean that anybody can mount a challenge just on the basis that they are potentially influenced or potentially a taxpayer?

The definition of who can mount a JR should be tightened, then, but ideally we should remove the ability to JR councils for the decisions. We should be monitored by the regulator and complaints should be made to the regulator, which should make that decision. If the regulator makes a decision and a member of the public is not happy with that decision, they should JR the regulator, not the council. I think that would make people feel a lot more comfortable about expressing their views and not having a vexatious JR or worrying about whether a minute in a meeting might contravene the rules or whatever.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Q Professor Tomkins, you talked about the different comparisons out there. Which country has the best example of this type of legislation and why?

Professor Tomkins: The states in the United States that have pursued anti-BDS legislation have probably gone further than anybody else I am aware of, although perhaps there are jurisdictions that I am not aware of; my research has been restricted to the United States, France and the UK. There would be, I think, significant human rights implications for the United Kingdom, given its commitments under the ECHR, were the UK to pursue the sort of anti-BDS policy that we see in some of those states. I think some significant article 10 issues would arise in relation to that sort of policy. I cannot speak for the Government, but that might very well be why the UK Government have elected not to proceed with that sort of policy.

The approach that the French authorities have been taking is very different, again, from what the present Bill envisages. The French seem to have seen the issue much more as one of public order and freedom of assembly, and are going directly after those who engage in anti-BDS demonstrations and protests in France. What we have in front of us is a Bill that is much more carefully—certainly much more narrowly—targeted on the two specific areas where public authorities in the UK, unfortunately in my view, have engaged in anti-BDS campaigning targeted at Israel and the occupied territories with regard to investment and procurement decisions.

This is not a general “Let’s ban BDS” Bill, or even a specific one with regard to public authorities. It is specifically and carefully targeted at the two core areas where, historically in the UK, public bodies have engaged in anti-BDS activities with regard to Israel when it comes to procurement and investment. Because it is carefully targeted for the UK, my answer to your question is that for the UK this is the best Bill.

[Dr Evans]

Q That is very useful. Thank you.

I have a wider question for the whole panel. This is written in the negative, in the sense that it indicates political or moral disapproval for foreign states. Do the panel have any thoughts about writing it neutrally, so that neither the pro nor the anti side fit in? In other words, a public body should not get involved in these kinds of arguments at all. Is that a position you agree with, Professor Tettenborn?

Professor Tettenborn: That is a very good question. Speaking as a professor in an ivory tower, I would immediately agree with you; speaking as a practical man, I would say that you are making a rod for your back if you start imposing abstract legal obligations of neutrality. I think it makes enforcement far easier and life far more difficult for clever lawyers if you do what is done in this Bill: “Thou shalt not say that you disapprove of a particular regime.” I do not think there is a problem of local authorities saying, “We think Venezuela is the best thing since sliced bread, and we will do whatever.” The Bill does answer the mischief.

[Dr Evans]

Q That is very useful. Mr Hoar, what do you think? The civil servant is supposed to be neutral, for example. We have already discussed the realms of where this body goes and who is actually in charge. All the panellists stated that they were not sure where the role of Ministers went. For the likes of the NHS or the police, is there not an argument for saying that there should be neutrality when it comes to foreign policy that deals with issues such as those in front of us?

Francis Hoar: There is an argument, and you have made it, but I do not think that it is a good enough argument for legislating, because you need to be very careful when you are legislating in respect of what is enforceable. Adam has given some examples of quite extreme—I think very extreme—classically American approaches that go very far down the line in terms of enforcement in another direction, in respect of companies that have or do not have dealings with Israel. To require and enforce neutrality would go far further than is needed. The mischief that the Bill addresses is the divestment campaign, based on political objectives that are potentially contrary to UK foreign policy, and that is where it should lie.

I just want to put down a marker that—if you will allow me, Dame Caroline—I have something to say about legal professional privilege.

[The Chair]

Yes, but do keep an eye on the clock, because there are two more Members who have indicated that they want to ask a question, and we have only 10 more minutes.

Francis Hoar: Thank you. On legal professional privilege, the answer is not quite as straightforward as has perhaps been represented. I think that the Government’s line is that the answer is in clause 7(9), which is to defer to the data protection legislation. The Data Protection Act 2018 has various provisions that restrict the requirement to provide legally professionally privileged information. For example, schedule 11 has a tailor-made restrictive provision:

“The listed provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of…information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege…could be maintained”.

I think legal professional privilege is extremely important; I entirely agree with Mr Norris about that. Obviously local authorities and other public bodies will be receiving advice on what could be quite complicated circumstances. I think it would be far more straightforward, though, to mirror that legislation in clause 7: you could just add a provision copied straight from paragraph 9 of schedule 11 to the 2018 Act. That is what I suggest that Parliament should do.

Professor Tettenborn: You will get exactly the same answer from me—he has taken the words out of my mouth.

[Dr Evans]

I have no further questions.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Almost reluctantly, I return to clause 4. I have been thinking about the practical repercussions of the Bill, and I have to say that my feeling this afternoon is that this is going to be pretty messy. If we are asking elected officials in council chambers up and down the country to say, “Now I am speaking in a personal capacity, and now I am speaking in my capacity as an elected official,” it feels like that would be very messy. Surely, as advocates of freedom of speech—as a number of members of the panel have said—that can only have a worrying effect in shutting down debate and discussion. That can only have an undemocratic outcome.

Professor Tettenborn: That is a very interesting point, if I may say so. There might be a simple way around it: we could have an extra subsection in clause 4 that said, “Nothing in this Act affects the right of any member of a public authority to speak in a private capacity.” Just saying it out loud provides a safe harbour; it means that people do not have to go to a lawyer to look up a law, or at least they do not have to go to so many lawyers. I think that might be helpful.

Professor Tomkins: I share everybody’s concern that we must take freedom of speech very seriously—I think that that is a very important set of concerns to raise—but there are two things to say.

First, what Professor Tettenborn has just described is already the state of the law. The way in which we approach rights under the Human Rights Act is that rights are stated generally, and any exceptions to those rights must be narrowly tailored and stated specifically. If there is doubt or ambiguity, it falls on the side of the right, not on the side of the exception. That is already, in broad terms, the legal position through the United Kingdom—as it should be, in my view. Adding extra words to clause 4 to deliver that effect will not have any effect, because it is already the legal position.

I remind the Committee that clause 4 is very narrow in scope: all it says is that somebody who is subject to section 1 may not say that they would have made a procurement decision or an investment decision different from the procurement decision or investment decision that they have made, by force of this legislation. It seems to me that all the members of this panel are of the view that that is perfectly compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed; and if it is compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, it is also compatible, I think, with our domestic standards with regard to free speech. For all those reasons, and notwithstanding the fact that I take free speech incredibly seriously, I genuinely do not think that there is a free speech issue with regard to this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that bus services are vital, not least for rural communities such as those he represents. I would like to talk to him and to Westmorland and Furness Council, which is relatively newly formed and Lib Dem-led—at the moment. I am looking forward to talking about what we can do to provide, with the Department for Transport, suitable services for his constituents.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

6. For what reason he has written to 10 planning authorities in England warning of designation.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

The Government expect all local planning authorities to deliver an efficient and effective planning service. On 12 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to 10 local authorities that did not meet the required performance levels for speed of decision making on non-major applications. Those local authorities have been given the opportunity to demonstrate improved performance. If the performance falls below the required threshold, the Secretary of State will use his powers to designate the local planning authority later this year.

[Dr Evans]

There are 329 local planning authorities in England, 315 of which performed above the 70% expected performance rate. With others in Leicestershire all above 84%, my local council, the Lib Dem-run Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, was at 46%, which is the lowest level in the country. The staff in the department are doing their best with the Lib Dem failures, but what more can a local MP and the Government do to help support the staff and our community to get the support they need?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the House’s attention. Where authorities fall behind, as in the case of that Lib Dem-run local authority, which he has highlighted effectively, we will not hesitate to take action. We are working to provide all local authorities with the support they need, including by increasing planning fees and ensuring that planning departments have the skills and capacity they need. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further.