(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberI congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. I am proud to have worked on these important proposals in government and remain determined to ensure that we protect, renew and enhance our democracy.
Our democracy has inspired people and movements around the world. We are rightly proud of it, but as we have heard, democracy is hard won and fragile. Today there are forces that wish to damage our democracy and shake its foundations, with intimidation on the streets and disinformation online. Our democracy must be resilient and robust in the face of these threats, which is why this landmark Bill is so important. It represents the most ambitious change to our democracy for a generation by allowing 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in UK-wide elections for the very first time; by introducing tougher rules on political donations; by tackling the scourge of harassment, intimidation and abuse of those participating in public life, which is having a chilling effect on our democracy; and by improving our system of voter ID to encourage more people to engage with and participate in our democracy.
As we have already heard, votes at 16 is a historic opportunity to breathe new life into our democracy. If someone is old enough to work, pay tax and serve their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it is run, but that right to vote should be matched by the right to be informed and educated about our institutions, our politics and our policies. That is why it is crucial that we have high-quality citizenship education in our schools, and we must do more to connect with the millions of people who, as we have heard, are eligible to vote but choose not to take part in our democratic process.
I welcome the measures to strengthen the rules around political donations to address the risks posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democracy. I especially welcome the moves to introduce new “know your donor” and “follow the money” checks, and fines of up to half a million pounds for those who do not follow those rules, as well as the introduction of a UK connections test and increased transparency for corporate donations to prevent shell companies from funnelling dodgy donations to political parties.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?
My hon. Friend makes the case for why it is crucial to legislate to close those loopholes, so that we can clean up our politics and ensure that the public have confidence in our political system.
Turning to the subject of cryptocurrency, we know that it offers a number of ways of circumventing donation laws, including by using multiple crypto wallets with different addresses or fragmenting large donations into smaller amounts through crowdfunding in order to bypass the reporting threshold, and by offering anonymity through the use of privacy coins. Ireland, Brazil and several states in the US already have bans on crypto donations.
The enemies of democracy are constantly looking at new ways to undermine our system. Unless action is taken now, the threat of foreign interference in our democracy will continue to grow. The Government have previously committed to taking action, and I am reassured to hear from the Secretary of State that action will be taken to ensure that cryptocurrency does not find its way into political donations. This Bill provides a very important opportunity to legislate, so I implore the Secretary of State and the Minister to make sure that, once the Rycroft review has concluded, we include in this Bill the changes necessary to ensure that we ban cryptocurrency donations, in order to reduce the threat of foreign interference in our democracy.
I turn to the subject of harassment and intimidation in our politics. Our democracy depends on the willingness of ordinary people to step forward, to knock on doors and to serve our communities, so the new powers in this Bill to allow courts to impose tougher sentences for offences involving electoral intimidation, and to remove the requirements for candidates to publish their home addresses, are necessary protections. Although parliamentary candidates have had the option of taking their home addresses off the ballot paper, local candidates have not, and this is an important change to protect them.
Most Members of this House and many candidates, regardless of whether they were elected or not, carry their own experiences of threats and intimidation. The July2024 general election saw a disturbing spike in intimidation and harassment, with Electoral Commission research revealing that more than half of candidates experienced harassment and intimidation. The Speaker’s Conference found even more evidence of harassment and intimidation of candidates. Tyres were slashed, families were targeted and campaigners were driven off the streets, while women and minority ethnic candidates were disproportionately affected. However, all candidates in different ways found themselves facing harassment and intimidation. We cannot go on like this. This was not heated political debate; these were organised attempts to intimidate people into silence. Many elected representatives do not discuss the harassment they have faced as it can trigger further abuse and compromise our safety.
I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech. On that point, I know what she personally went through during the last general election, and many Members from right across the House have also had to face it. Does she agree with me that, if we do not address this, we will see good, locally rooted candidates feeling afraid to put themselves forward to enrich our democracy because of that fear and intimidation?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have heard many say exactly that. In fact, a number of us have ourselves wondered whether, if we had known what we know now about the state of harassment and intimidation in our politics, we would have stood for Parliament. Of course, we have to fight against these threats, because if we do not, the next generation will be put off politics. It is on us all to take action to make sure politics is a safe space in which people can operate and candidates can stand forward, whichever party they belong to.
The intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is not, of course, unique to one party or one group of candidates; it is widespread in a way that I had never imagined. The industrial scale of intimidation and threats we experienced in the run-up to the 2024 general election was unlike anything I had previously experienced, and I suspect the same applies to many other Members. There was organised disinformation and death threats in a campaign conducted with constant concerns for physical security and the security of campaigners and decent, law-abiding people who want to participate in our democracy. In my constituency and across the country, many brave campaigners stood up for our democracy and bravely fought against that hatred, but they should not have had to work in such a hostile environment.
This happens not just during the election cycle or election campaigns. We have seen Members threatened with murder and receiving death threats on a regular basis. We have seen local councillor candidates being threatened. When I was working on this strategy last summer, I received a threat to my life. Two weeks ago, I received another threat. Sadly, this is now commonplace, with too many MPs, candidates and local representatives experiencing this hostility. So we have to redouble our efforts to stop this hostility and the chilling effect it is having on our democracy. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to those who wish to undermine our elections in this way, and we have to work together on that across the parties.
It is not just the thugs on our streets; it is the hostile actors, which we heard about in the Front Benchers’ speeches. Hostile actors are exploiting online platforms to flood the debate with disinformation and deepfakes. Disinformation online fuels intimidation, hostility and violence offline. That has been the experience of many of us during the last election and subsequently. The toxic ecosystem is connected, and this Bill begins to address that reality, but we have to do more. Alongside this Bill, we need the Government to do much more to tackle the very serious threat of foreign interference through the use of online platforms, not to mention the proliferation of online threats and the failure of platforms to take action. That means more action to stop platforms allowing threats and online hostility against those in public life and our citizens.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I would like to add to that list of issues that need to be tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the role that the media play in our politics, the Government have a responsibility to think long and hard about what we do in that space?
Absolutely. We all have such a responsibility, and I know of plenty of journalists in the media, particularly female journalists, who are being threatened and intimidated as well. This is a wider societal issue about making sure we can express ourselves freely and protect freedom of speech, but also protect those operating in our media, those in our politics and public life and, more widely, those participating in our democracy.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that what also fuels the division and the attacks on politicians is when some individuals, including Members of this House, express that they are driven mad by the sight of black and Asian people in different spaces in our society? Does she agree that that should stop, and that all Members have a responsibility to call it out?
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. We have to take action against racism, anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism and other forms of hostility and hatred towards particular groups in our society, especially those with protected characteristics. There are laws in place that need to be enforced, and those laws are often breached online. We must ensure that we take responsibility and show leadership in the way we conduct ourselves. Otherwise, we are going to see those with protected characteristics being driven out of public life. I am seeing that already in local communities and of course in our Parliament, because of what we are experiencing.
In conclusion, our democracy is fragile, and it must be supported and strengthened in the face of rapid change and the threats from foreign interference. It is our duty to be stewards of our democracy, leaving it in a better place than we found it. It is at the heart of our liberty and our citizenship, and we must defend it, nurture it and future-proof it.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is for the ISC, not me, to comment on its proceedings. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that national security is the first duty of Government. It is not appropriate for me in this instance to comment on any specific matters of national security, but as I continue to repeat, all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision on this case.
My hon. Friend will be aware that I have written to the Secretary of State to highlight the concerns of my constituents about the proposed embassy in my constituency. While I recognise the planning dimension and the limits on what he can say, will he none the less reassure me and the House that residents’ concerns about security and human rights, as well as wider local concerns, will be taken seriously as part of the process, not least because the area has one of the largest Muslim populations in the country? We are all aware of the persecution of Uyghur Muslims, which this House has campaigned against, among wider human rights violations.
As I have said, all material considerations will be taken into account when making the decision. Any party can make representations on the case and a number of hon. Members from across the House have done so, and all relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when reaching that decision.
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsI am delighted to announce the publication of the Government new strategy for modern and secure elections. This marks a significant step forward to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of our electoral system. It sets out a clear vision for modern, secure and inclusive elections, underpinned by transparency, resilience and fairness.
Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution and how it has inspired people around the world. We have a responsibility to protect and strengthen that democracy. In each generation there must be a national conversation about how to protect our democratic system and culture, so that we build on our advances and leave a democracy more robust and relevant to the next generation. We must build upon the foundations laid by those who came before us, and leave it better than we found it.
This bold new strategy reflects the ambition of this Government to ensure that every eligible citizen can participate confidently and safely in a democracy protected against evolving threats and challenges. It looks ahead, building on what works well while making the changes we need to face a changing and challenging world.
We will bring forward a Bill during this Parliament, which will include extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds and work to create a system of automated voter registration. We will bring forward new safeguards on digital campaigning and pave the way for digital voter identification, rebuild our firewall against foreign interference and protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections against harassment and intimidation.
These are changes designed to protect our democracy.
The strategy has been developed by working across Government, through close engagement with key partners from across the electoral community, with young people and with civil society organisations. It outlines a programme of work that will support innovation, improve accessibility, strengthen oversight, safeguard against known and emerging threats, and ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in the UK get to decide its future.
We are grateful to all those who contributed to this strategy and look forward to continuing to work across Government and the devolved nations, with our partners in the electoral community and with the wider public to ensure its successful implementation into law.
The strategy is available on gov.uk and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS842]
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the new policies announced in the Government’s strategy for elections.
The Government have today published our strategy for modern and secure elections. When we came into power just over a year ago, the Government committed through our manifesto to bringing forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections. The strategy we have published today sets out how we will legislate and implement provisions to extend the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, increase participation in our elections, tackle the inconsistencies in voter identification rules, and protect our democracy by overhauling our political finance rules.
We recognise that there is a growing and worrying trend of candidates, administrators and electors facing harassment and intimidation, which has a chilling effect on our democracy. We are bringing forward measures to tackle this issue. I thank Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Conference for the work that is being conducted, and the report that has been published, on harassment and intimidation. We will fix the foundations of how elections operate by taking forward a range of practical measures to ensure that elections continue to be delivered successfully.
Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution, and in how it continues to inspire. The Government have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The plans we have announced today will future-proof our democracy, secure our elections and protect them against interference. We will deliver on these plans during the lifetime of this Parliament through a programme of reforms, which will include an elections Bill that will be introduced in due course. Through this strategy, we will usher in a new chapter in our democracy that reflects our principles and restores faith in our politics. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this very important agenda.
Yesterday, the Department gave notice of a written ministerial statement on the Government’s new strategy for elections, which is a significant policy document on changes to election law and political finance law—something that affects us all in this House. Instead of the Minister using this democratic Chamber to announce a new and wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in Monday’s No. 10 lobby briefing—typical government by press release. In fact, it has just been announced on “BBC News”. There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September, due to the pending recess.
Why did the Minister not choose to come to the House to announce this policy, despite us having been given word through a written ministerial statement that the Government would do so? Why did she not think it right to come here of her own accord to announce it? Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date? This is contrary to the approach of the last Government, who actively consulted on changes.
This strategy has finally revealed the Government’s ambition to allow a 16-year-old to vote in an election, but not to stand in it, probably because young people are abandoning the Labour party in droves. Why do they think a 16-year-old should be able vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war or even stand in the elections they are voting in? Is not the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?
Does the Minister agree that, while foreign donations are already illegal and should remain so, steps should be taken to tighten the law to prevent donations from those who are not properly on the electoral roll, including the funnelling of money from impermissible sources? We welcome the U-turn on not scrapping voter ID, but will using bank cards not undermine the security of the ballot box, and what security measures will she bring in now that automatic registration has been announced?
Finally, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the important issue of intimidation in public life? Will the Government still abide by the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties without proper engagement and discussion? And will they stop announcing constitutional policy by press release?
This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed us to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party lost the general election, in the worst general election defeat for decades, so it is no wonder that the Conservatives are scared of the electorate. The truth is that young people deserve to have a stake and have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that he would prefer them to be silenced.
I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman’s party sat in government for 14 years, and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system, despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement. We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices, and protecting Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.
The real question for the hon. Gentleman is whether the Conservatives will finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies. Under the new laws, they will not have a choice, and we will not stop there, because they will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks. We will give the Electoral Commission the power to administer a hefty fine, of up to a maximum of £500,000, to deter bad behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, the hon. Gentleman should be welcoming these changes, and taking the opportunity to finally clean up his party.
We have published the elections strategy, and we have laid a written statement. I have responded in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I will continue to engage with parliamentary colleagues in the coming days, over the summer recess and in the autumn.
We want to make a series of changes, and I am determined to make sure we get as much cross-party agreement as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that there is common ground on a range of issues. He knows all too well the harassment and intimidation, and threats to our lives, that many of us have faced. It is really important that we work on these agendas together.
On moving towards automated voter registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we will carefully consider how we implement those changes to ensure they are done safely, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that. We have retained the voter ID changes made under the previous Government, but we recognise that certain groups of legitimate voters, particularly disabled voters, were excluded. We need to address that gap, and I know his party recognises that challenge, so we will ensure that we do not exclude legitimate voters. I look forward to working with him on issues of common interest and agreement.
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions; she does important work in her Committee. The changes we are introducing will ensure that elected representatives, candidates, campaigners and electoral staff, who play a unique role in our democracy, are properly protected. We will give courts the power to increase sentences for those who are hostile to candidates. An aggravated factor for intimidatory offence will be introduced, allowing courts to pass tougher sentences. We will also remove the requirement to publish candidates’ addresses. We will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sentencing Council and other judicial bodies.
We are very pleased that the Government have published the strategy, many aspects of which have the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have, for many years, championed votes at 16 and we are really glad that the Government have listened to those calls. We also welcome the measures to tackle dark and illicit money in our politics, and the recent plans to introduce supplementary voting for mayoral elections.
However, I am concerned that the strategy shows nowhere near the kind of ambition that we need to fix a system of elections that has left large swathes of the public feeling like their vote simply does not count. As Members across the House will know, last year’s general election turned out the most disproportionate result in history, with nearly 60% of people who voted not represented in Parliament by the candidate they voted for.
This opportunity cannot be wasted. Will the Government go further? Will they look at scrapping voter ID in its entirety? Will they look at introducing further measures to ensure that foreign oligarchs such as Elon Musk are not able to interfere in British politics, including through party funding? And will they finally scrap first past the post and introduce fair votes via proportional representation?
The hon. Lady has a lot of questions. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary and local elections. Her party, in the coalition Government, had the opportunity, through a referendum, to campaign and institute the appropriate changes. Our focus is on ensuring we address the manifesto commitments we made, including a voting age of 16. I am grateful to her and her party for their support. We are also taking action to tackle illicit finance and foreign interference. I very much hope that she and her colleagues will work with us on that very important agenda.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which is looking at the security of MPs, candidates and elections. Does my hon. Friend agree that a wide number of behaviours in our democratic system are intimidating candidates and, indeed, Members of this House, and that that is detrimental to our values and democracy? Will she expand on the measures in the strategy that will seek to alleviate those very serious problems?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In the 15 years I have been a Member of Parliament, we have seen a rise in hatred and hostility towards candidates and elected officials, and have sadly faced the loss of our dear colleagues, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. This Government are determined to ensure that elected representatives, candidates and election officials are protected, because this trend is having a devastating chilling effect on our democracy. We need to work together to protect our democracy while protecting freedom of speech. I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend on the specific proposals as we proceed with their implementation.
I thank the Minister for her statement, but I have not heard her say anything about the work of the boundary commissions for local government and constituencies. I think they should form part of this discussion, particularly to ensure that constituencies can be made up of genuine communities by getting rid of the pointless rule that a constituency cannot go beyond a certain region. Areas of Essex near my constituency, for instance, cannot be included within Romford, which only goes into London. Similarly, local council wards would surely be better if they were one-member wards, whereby they could be like mini-constituencies looking after a particular community. Would that not be a better way forward, and would the Minister consider it as part of the review?
The hon. Gentleman will understand the process and work of the boundary commissions. This strategy is focused on the themes that I spoke to earlier, and that is what we will be focusing on.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, I warmly welcome this policy paper. I think my hon. Friend the Minister and I were much more poorly equipped to vote when we were 18 than today’s 16-year-olds, so I warmly welcome that measure. I also welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, introduced last week, with the Government saying that first past the post
“can lead to individuals being elected with only a small proportion of the total votes cast”,
and that Mayors and police and crime commissioners
“should be elected with a greater consensus among their electors.”
The Government have also claimed that this change will give the local electorate an “increased voice” and will
“better support the democratic mandate of people elected to such positions”.
Given the flawed nature of first past the post, will the Minister consider also reviewing the system for elections to this place?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work with the APPG. He is aware of the policy of the Labour party and this Government on first past the post. I refer him to my previous answer on that question.
Fair elections must be elections that we can all trust. The most important element of our electoral system is that it is a secret ballot and that it should be down to the individual to make up their own mind. I am therefore deeply concerned that the widespread use of postal voting across the country is allowing dangerous fraud with many voters still intimidated and coerced into using postal votes on the instruction of somebody else. The review covers many practical aspects of postal voting, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure the accuracy and honesty of the postal voting system?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party introduced a series of changes, including on voter ID and other checks as electors register to vote. I am all too aware of the areas that need particular focus. We have retained the protections on postal voting. The hon. Gentleman is aware of a number of issues around postal votes, but I reassure him that there are laws to ensure that forgery and personation do not happen. We will retain the appropriate checks and safeguards that were introduced in the past.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
May I put on record my profound thanks to the Minister for her personal commitment to ensuring that we renew confidence in democracy? I warmly welcome proposals around moving away from the first-past-the-post system in regional elections and restoring that part of our democracy. Will she outline how she will tackle the illicit finance that is flowing into our democracy? I have real concerns about how foreign influence damaging our democracy and I would be grateful for more information on how this strategy will deliver for our country.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work in this area. As I mentioned, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into our politics. We are ensuring that the Electoral Commission will have the appropriate powers to support political parties, making sure that they do “know your donor” checks. Where parties fail in this area, a fine of up to £500,000 can be applied. We will apply that fine proportionately in recognition of the resource issues of smaller parties.
I very much welcome what is in the Government’s policy, particularly votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We already have this in Scotland for the Scottish parliamentary elections and I have also campaigned for the change to be made for general elections. Will the Minister confirm that this will be in place in time for the next general election, and how the information will be passed out to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will now be able to vote in general elections?
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. We are looking very closely at the work in Scotland and Wales. We want to make sure that we take the time to implement the appropriate changes in time for the next general election, but we will work with the relevant institutions, including the Electoral Commission, education establishments, the Department for Education, charities, youth organisations and other interested bodies to make sure that we get this right.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I welcome the measures to take out dark money from our politics, but they will mean nothing unless we move forward aggressively to ban cryptocurrency donations in British politics. They are used for money laundering and to disguise dark money. They have no role in British politics. Will the Minister confirm that the elections Bill will ban cryptocurrency donations?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his work in this area through his Committee and for raising these issues. There are already a number of rules in place on political donations and they must be abided by, regardless of the type of donations made—including cryptocurrency donations. Our reforms of political finance to further strengthen our democracy will also apply to all donations, including those in cryptocurrency.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Democracy is fragile and, here in the United Kingdom, our democracy is strongly in the crosshairs of nefarious states including Russia and China, which do not share our values. We are seeing increasing activity online, particularly to distort the outcome of elections, via platforms including TikTok, which have links to communist regimes in China. Can the Minister update the House on what steps are being taken in particular to protect our democracy from misinformation that vehemently seeks to distort the outcome of elections?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. He will be aware that the defending democracy taskforce is leading the work on a range of issues—including, of course, in relation to the points that he has made. We are taking action to bear down on those issues, with a cross-Government approach. The Online Safety Act 2023 is important in relation to some of the points that he has made. As I have pointed out, we are also aware of the dangers of foreign interference and foreign state actors, and these reforms are really important to protect the integrity of our system and our democracy.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
As a member of the Speaker’s Conference, I have heard evidence that has shocked me to my core, so I know how much needed these reforms are.
This week I have held my first summer school with 16 and 17-year-olds this week. Twenty of them have been learning about how they can make a change not only in their community, but in the country they live in. Does the Minister agree that they deserve to have their voices heard at the ballot box, too?
I thank my hon. Friend for her work to support young people to participate in our democracy. Young people can work at 16, pay taxes and join the Army. There is no reason that they should not have the right to a say in who represents them and the right to shape their future. They are passionate about the issues affecting their communities and country; I know that at first hand from the work I have done over the years to support young people in their leadership journeys and in participating in our elections.
The SNP welcomes that the UK Government are catching up to Scotland, where we have had votes for 16-year-olds for the last nine years. However, it is clear that real change also requires looking at this Parliament’s electoral system. Recent polls have shown that the leading party currently would win a majority of seats in the next election on less than 30% of the vote. Is it not long overdue that this Government reformed the UK Parliament’s broken electoral system and introduced proportional representation, as Welsh Labour is doing in the Senedd?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or local elections.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement, and I can only speculate about why the Conservatives did not decide to clean up party funding when they were in Government. I want to echo some of the comments about proportional representation. Personally, I feel that it is at the heart of many of the problems the country has faced in recent times. I absolutely accept that proportional representation is not part of the Government’s proposals, but will the Minister keep an open mind and look at how other strong democracies around the world have been able to use PR to both strengthen their democracy and create a more collaborative political culture?
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer on the Labour party’s position: the Government have no plans to change the electoral system. He is of course right that we should always learn from international experience. We are certainly doing that on a range of different agendas, including some of the themes of this strategy, and we will continue to do so.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister has previously talked about extending the franchise to include additional foreign nationals. Will the Government take this opportunity to rule out ever extending the franchise to foreign nationals beyond existing rules?
The focus of this strategy is on eligible voters in this country.
The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, has been doing a lot of work on defending democracy. I am sure we will welcome the proposals, particularly on illicit finance and cracking down on unincorporated associations. I gently urge her to look closely at cryptocurrencies, which are clearly the currency of choice for criminals and rogue states. For example, one individual has routed £13 million into political organisations in this country through such a currency.
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about new challenges in relation to crypto, and I refer him to my previous answer on this point. We will look very closely at these issues to make sure that loopholes are closed, but I reassure him that the current powers cover donations through crypto and the changes we are making will also include crypto.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
There is lots in the strategy that the Liberal Democrats and I welcome. Could the Minister explain why there is a difference between Westminster elections and combined mayoral elections? We know that the majority of the British public want to see the scrapping of first past the post, and we know from when we had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject during this Parliament that the majority of Members in this place want to see the scrapping of first past the post—indeed, we know that a majority of Labour Members want to see the scrapping of first past the post. So why is there a difference between the different types of elections?
The hon. Member may have critiques of the first-past-the-post system, but it provides a direct relationship between Members of the legislature and local constituencies, which is really important. The Liberal Democrats, in coalition with the Conservatives for five years, had the opportunity to introduce a referendum, but they lost that referendum. The supplementary voting system was implemented on the introduction of both mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. We believe that it is more appropriate for selecting single-person executives.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I declare a former interest as a lawyer specialising in election law. I can say from that previous life that the previous Tory Government left our election law in an unfair and dangerous state: unfair in that they made it harder for people to vote, and dangerous in that they did nothing to prevent foreign actors from spending millions of pounds, roubles or dollars to interfere with our democracy. Does the Minister agree that it is high time to take robust action to make our democracy safe and fair for everyone, and will she assure the House that this will be a speedy and fair process?
I look forward to using the expertise of colleagues—not only in my party but in others—so that we get this right. It is in all our interests to close the loopholes that are so dangerous and damaging for our democracy.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
There is much to welcome in these proposals to enhance our democracy, particularly on the safety of candidates. Reform is very much against votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, who, it is interesting to note, are completely split down the middle on this issue. However, I urge the Minister to consider our grave concerns with particular regard to postal voting, its security and the risks of personation. I have seen people carrying bag loads of postal votes to a polling station on election day. Surely that is completely wrong.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take those issues very seriously. Personating another voter is a deliberate act of fraud. It completely undermines our democracy and is a serious criminal offence that will continue to be prosecuted. If he has examples, he should report them to the police.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
For 14 years, young people in my constituency were frustrated by politicians who simply did not listen to their concerns on affordable housing, on the climate crisis or on good local jobs. Does the Minister agree that listening to young people and engaging them in the process is a key first step in rebuilding some of the damage done to our democracy over the 14 years of incompetence we saw from the Tories?
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for giving young people, from the age of 16, the right to vote and participate in our democracy. Young people are the future, and it is vital that we all work together to ensure that they learn about, and can participate in, our political system and our democracy. That is how we will ensure that our democracy is appreciated and that its value and influence, both in this country and globally, is shared by the next generation.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Conservative Government seemingly tried to do everything possible to destroy trust in politics and to make it harder for people to vote. In my constituency, that led to just a 49% turnout at the last election. Will the Minister set out more about how the announcement will make it easier for people to engage in our democracy and how the Government will give the next generation a say in the future of our country through giving votes at 16?
It is crucial that we engage electors—both young electors and the millions who are not registered to vote. We will do careful work to move towards automated voter registration and to ensure that it is a success. It is about making sure that every citizen who is eligible to vote registers and is able to vote.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
A previous parliamentary inquiry into the funding of Northern Ireland political parties expressed a concern about the lack of visibility on how cross-border parties—the likes of Sinn Féin—manage their fundraising and the difficulty for regulators in verifying that no Republic of Ireland, or indeed US-based, funds were used in UK elections. It recommended stronger audit requirements and a clear separation of cross-jurisdictional finances. Will the Minister assure me that these measures will apply equally across all parts of the United Kingdom and that regulators outside the United Kingdom will work together to ensure that we do not have those cross-jurisdictional moneys?
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working through the interministerial group, which includes the relevant Northern Ireland Minister, to ensure that we introduce changes that are consistent with the Good Friday agreement and that recognise specific issues affecting different parts of the United Kingdom? I would be very happy to discuss our proposals further with him.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
In Scotland, where we have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in council and Scottish Parliament elections, I have found that some of the most engaging, respectful and searching questions have come from those in that age group, whereas in general elections a 16 or 17-year-old’s response is often, “I’ll go and see if my mum or dad are in”, or occasionally, “My dad’s told me to tell you that he’s not in.” Given how respectful and engaged 16 and 17-year-olds are, does the Minister agree that they should have the right to express that engagement at the ballot box?
I could not agree more. As my hon. Friend says, young people are passionate, engaged and interested in the issues that affect their lives. It is right that they should have the opportunity to participate in our democracy.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 60% of the British public now support proportional representation. Given that mayors will be elected under this system from 2027 onwards, why does the Minister refuse even to consider that fairer system so that by the time the next general election comes along, voters will have their views more fully and fairly represented?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answers on the same question.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that my experience of being elected under three electoral systems—additional member system, single transferable vote and first past the post—suggests that none of them are perfect? However, there are advantages to first past the post that we should be very careful about doing away with. The other two systems that I have been elected with served my constituents far worse than first past the post does.
Voting for 16 and 17-year-olds was passed by the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago and enabled young people to vote in elections as of 2016 in Scotland. I was delighted to vote for that measure, as were all members of the Scottish Parliament, so will the Scottish Conservatives give a lesson to their colleagues at Westminster about why they voted for it in 2016?
I very much hope that the Scottish Conservatives will join us in supporting votes at 16.
Given that Northern Ireland has been used to photo ID for voting since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, I have seen the benefits there of that simple form of accountability. However, difficulty remains with the abuse of the postal vote system. Looking to Northern Ireland as an evidential example of that, does the Minister intend to make changes to ensure that the ability to vote by post is not abused, as it currently is in some parts of Northern Ireland?
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am working with ministerial colleagues, including the Northern Ireland Minister, and we are sensitive to the differences in different contexts. I am happy to continue the dialogue with him.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Having spent more than a decade tackling financial crime before I came to this place, I welcome the Minister’s remarks and the strategy on elections, which will protect our hard-won democracy from foreign interference and which also incorporates demands from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, along with asks from the Electoral Commission on political finance rules. Does the Minister expect the forthcoming elections Bill to be in force before the local elections next May? Will company donations be permitted only from firms with UK ultimate beneficial owners? What guidance does she envisage being made available to political parties to fulfil their “know your donor” obligations? On enforcement, does she foresee that the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service will require additional resources to fulfil potential obligations under the forthcoming elections Bill?
My hon. Friend has huge expertise in this area. I am happy to write to him on his specific questions, of which there were a number, but I want to reassure him that we will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission. We want to ensure that the powers the commission is given go hand in hand with the support it provides to political parties on “know your donor” checks and on ensuring that we have put in place the appropriate safeguards.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome this strategy from the Government. Under the previous Government, we saw serious issues with MPs taking thousands of pounds from a Russia-linked entity, despite the Ministry of Defence raising “significant security concerns”. I am concerned that we are still seeing such issues today. We have seen reports of Reform UK taking tens of thousands of pounds from a company whose owner is apparently based overseas. Does the Minister agree that this raises the urgent need to tighten donation rules and protect our democracy?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; foreign interference in British politics is a growing danger to our democracy and it is right that we tackle it. Our changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing the loopholes that allow foreign funding to influence our politics and elections. This evolving and sophisticated threat has made it all too easy to funnel illicit money from abroad to political parties, which is why we are introducing these checks. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, in this Parliament.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is really important that Members of Parliament are accurate in our statements, and I just want some clarity. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) mentioned bags of postal votes, but you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that under the Elections Act 2022 and a subsequent statutory instrument—I served on its Committee as the shadow Minister for democracy—people handling postal votes will now be limited to handling no more than five postal votes for elections, plus their own postal votes. Does the hon. Member want to reflect on his statement about people carrying multiple bags of postal votes?
(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government have increased funding for homelessness services by £233 million, bringing the total to nearly £1 billion. The 2025 spending review protected that level of investment until 2028-29, and provided £100 million of additional funding from the transformation fund.
Patrick Hurley
The number of people in the UK who have no recourse to public funds has increased significantly in recent years. Lots of those people end up falling through the cracks in the system—some of them perhaps end up rough sleeping, and some engage in antisocial behaviour—but the one thing they all have in common is that they do not have the support needed to regularise their lifestyle, and there is not the enforcement that is needed to remove them from their situation. Will the Minister outline the steps being taken to ensure that people with no recourse to public funds are not left in a bureaucratic limbo, which helps nobody?
It is important that migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. We encourage councils to exhaust all options when working with people with restricted eligibility for public funds. The funding for the rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant can be used to help anyone, provided actions are within the law.
London boroughs now spend £4 million a day on temporary accommodation. While costs and rough sleeping have soared, central Government subsidy has been frozen for 14 years, pushing councils to the brink of bankruptcy. Do my hon. Friends on the Front Bench agree that it is time to lift the 2011 Tory cap, so that London councils can get the support they need to make homelessness history?
The Department for Work and Pensions keeps the level of housing benefit subsidy for temporary accommodation under review, and any future decisions will be informed by the Government’s wider housing ambitions, including tackling homelessness, and the broader fiscal context. Our fair funding review 2.0 consultation sets out our proposals to target money where it is most needed and will account for temporary accommodation costs.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Homelessness is a huge issue in my constituency, where housing costs are among the highest in the country and people cannot find social and affordable housing. The business rates reset proposed under the fair funding review would potentially lead to a 42% decrease in the net resources available to the council. Can the Minister assure those living in the Cherwell district council area that the fair funding review will include protected support for tackling homelessness?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we inherited a homelessness crisis, with record levels of people in temporary accommodation. Rough sleeping has gone up by 164% since 2010. The previous Labour Government cut homelessness and rough sleeping dramatically. We are investing to tackle the root causes of homelessness, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on those issues.
Recent figures provided by CHAIN report a record 13,231 people sleeping rough in London—a 19% increase in the year since this Government took office, and a 63% increase since Sadiq Khan took office as Mayor of London. What conversations has the Minister had with the Mayor of London to tackle this failure in leadership, and will she commit to eliminating rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament? After a year of this Government, it has gone up.
I gently remind the shadow Minister that rough sleeping has gone up by 164% since 2010, and that it was cut by two thirds by the previous Labour Government.
Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise for his party’s record of 14 years of failure? We are taking action to tackle the root causes of rough sleeping and homelessness. He should apologise for the failures of his Government.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy. We will give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all elections, giving them a say in shaping their future. Where we find barriers to participation, we will work with the electoral sector and other stakeholders to tackle them.
Lisa Smart
I recently had the pleasure of getting a robust grilling from some 16 and 17-year-olds from Aquinas sixth-form college in my constituency, which left me filled with optimism and a real sense that our democracy is in good hands. My worry, though, is that these sixth-formers and young people like them might lose their enthusiasm for our democracy and for voting because they feel that our first-past-the-post voting system leads to politicians taking a majority of power on a minority of votes. With more than 40% of MPs elected with under 40% of the votes cast in their constituency, does the Minister agree with her own Government’s statement on why they are scrapping first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, and should we expect a different voting system when the Aquinas sixth-formers vote at the next general election?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Her party had the opportunity when in government to introduce electoral reform. This Government are focused on ensuring that young people are enfranchised. I look forward to working with her to deliver votes at 16 for young people in our country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently visited some wonderfully politically engaged sixth-formers at Sir Frederick Gibberd college in Harlow, including Luka and Finlay, who shadowed some of my office staff last week. Does the Minister agree that giving 16 and 17-year olds the vote will help to build a lifelong habit of democratic engagement and participation?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence shows that when young people participate in politics, it positively affects them through their lifetime and increases participation. Young people can pay tax and join the Army at 16, so it is right that they should have a say in how our country is governed.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
This afternoon, I visited Centrepoint, where I spoke to young people living in self-contained flats and met the staff who are working to support those young people. The Secretary of State will be aware that a coalition of 150 charities supporting young people are calling for a specific youth-focused section in the ending homelessness strategy; estimates show that would save £8.5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree that it is not only morally right but economically smart to have a youth-specific chapter in that new strategy?
I commend my hon. Friend for her work on this really important agenda. I met representatives from the youth homelessness sector at a recent roundtable. We are determined to ensure that the concerns and interests of young people experiencing homelessness are integrated into our report on ending homelessness, and we are working with the sector to tackle the root causes of youth homelessness.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne’s streets are being blighted by severely overgrown grass verges that attract litter, antisocial behaviour and crime. Will the Minister join me in urging Conservative-run East Sussex county council to urgently get a grip on verge maintenance in Eastbourne in order to help make our grass great again?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
A new report by Crisis shows that only 2.6% of rental properties in my area of Leicester South are affordable to those on local housing allowance. That is a real-terms cut as rents soar, because the Government have frozen housing benefit until 2026. Will the Secretary of State explain how that freeze aligns with the Government’s aim of reducing homelessness, and will the Government urgently review the cap so that people can afford to keep a roof over their heads?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer: this Government have invested nearly £1 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, we are dealing with the root causes of homelessness. That means investing billions of pounds to ensure that some 300,000 social and affordable homes are created over the decade, so that we can get people into the housing that is urgently needed.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Last week, nearly 3,000 people across Stafford borough were told at short notice that Homes Plus, one of our housing associations, is effectively scrapping the current housing waiting list. It also said that nearly 2,000 people no longer had a housing need, but it has not explained how it has come to that conclusion. People are confused, angry and scared. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, and will he meet me to help me find a way forward for those who have been left in limbo?
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsThe Government recently consulted on their proposals for implementing the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. The Act aims to improve quality in supported housing. The consultation included detail on the proposed licensing regime, the national supported housing standards for the support provided, and housing benefit content.
While the consultation was open, officials held a number of stakeholder engagement sessions and consulted statutory consultees. There were just under 600 responses from local authorities, providers, residents and others with an interest in supported housing, demonstrating the interest from those involved in supported housing, who wanted to have their say on the changes we proposed.
It is clear from the consultation responses and engagement with the sector that elements of the licensing regime design will need to be refined before regulations can be laid and work is now under way to achieve this. As I recognised in my written ministerial statement of 5 November 2024, there continue to be cases of residents finding themselves at the hands of exploitative landlords. However, it is extremely important that we ensure that the licensing is effective, not overly burdensome, and that it ultimately achieves the right result: residents living in appropriate, good-quality supported housing with the right support provided to residents.
I would like to thank those who responded to the consultation for their constructive feedback.
We will aim to publish a full Government response after summer recess, in advance of consulting on the draft regulations in early 2026 and implementing the Act as soon as practicably possible.
[HCWS800]
(8 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Tracy Gilbert
Yes, I agree. There has been support from the Scottish Government and we have been working in co-operation. How the Bill will be implemented by the Scottish Government is a core part of the amendment.
Without the amendment, the Bill could still deliver on its purpose. However, the Scottish Government would have to repeal and restate the entire Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 with renewed provisions. The amendment seeks to remedy that oversight and ensure that the Scottish Government are able to implement the Bill in their own devolved legislation, so that Scottish electors may benefit in time for the May 2026 Scottish Parliament elections.
It is unfortunate to need to make a technical amendment this late in the process of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly given that the error could have been identified some time ago, but I am glad to be able to assist the Scottish Government with this matter. I commend the amendment to the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on all her work. She has shown admirable commitment during the passage of the Bill so far, and her commitment to delivering it for the benefit of voters in Scotland is evident. I also take the opportunity to reaffirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. I am grateful to have seen support from across the House for the changes that it will make possible.
Amendment 1 is further evidence of the diligence that my hon. Friend has shown towards the Bill. I am particularly grateful to her for accommodating the Scottish Government’s request for the amendment at this late stage. She has clearly explained that it is a minor and technical amendment that will simplify the implementation process for the Scottish Government. The change in clause 2 makes it explicit that the new section 12B power introduced by the Bill can amend secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act.
The amendment has been considered by my officials, who are content that it does not present any kind of novel approach to legislation or set any precedent. It is simply a sensible change that will avoid unnecessary restatement and then reconsideration of existing legislation by the Scottish Parliament, thereby increasing the chances of the important changes that the Bill will make possible being delivered in time for the May 2026 Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru elections. I am pleased that the issue has been identified at this stage, and confirm that the Government support the amendment.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Third Reading
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on all her fantastic work, and on ensuring there is cross-party support for this Bill. I echo the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), made about her ability to make such an important change so quickly; we are celebrating it being a year since the general election.
I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for their excellent speeches, which highlighted the importance of this private Member’s Bill. They also pointed out some of the changes that we have already made; for instance, I am proud to have introduced the veteran ID card while in government. There is also a specific proposal in our manifesto to reduce the voting age, so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote.
The Government share the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to this Bill, which will give people in Scotland and Wales the same choices for managing their voting arrangements for devolved elections as they already have for reserved elections. Many of us will remember a time when absent voting in the UK was still governed by excessively restrictive criteria; electors had to provide valid reasons, such as illness, travel or occupational constraints, to qualify for a postal vote. Similarly, proxy voting was limited to those with clear impediments to attending the polling station.
This changed in 2001, when postal voting on demand was introduced in Great Britain, allowing electors to freely apply for a postal vote. That change was quickly embraced by the electorate: in the 2001 general election, there was a significant increase in the number of postal votes issued compared with previous elections, and by 2005, the figure had more than doubled. By 2010, over 7 million postal votes were issued across the UK. Now that electors have been given the choice to vote in a way that best suits them and their needs, it has become clear that there is significant demand for flexibility in how people exercise their democratic rights. While it is less commonly used, the option to vote via a proxy has also remained a viable and necessary alternative for many electors across the country.
In 2007, measures were introduced to verify the identity of postal voters. They added a layer of security to the process and ensured that electors could have confidence in the system. These included the requirement for voters to provide personal identifiers, such as their date of birth and signature, when applying for and returning postal ballots. The introduction of the “Register to vote” service in 2014 gave electors the ability to go online and make their application to vote without needing to submit a paper application. That change, much like the changes to absent voting, has proved extremely popular with the electorate; in 2024, over 92% of all applications to register to vote were made using the online service, with less than 8% taking the traditional paper route. The modernisation of our electoral system through the changes I have just laid out has proven popular with electors time and again.
The Bill relates to the online absent vote application service, which, as has been pointed out, went live in October 2023 as a result of the need to modernise the way in which electors apply for their absent votes. Given the enthusiasm that electors have shown for the freedom to decide the method by which they cast their ballot, and the clear preference for using online services to apply to vote, it is no surprise that the new online absent vote application service has also proven popular. Unfortunately, as we have heard, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the new online service to apply for postal and proxy votes only for reserved elections, such as elections to the UK Parliament. The benefits of extending the online absent vote application service to devolved elections for electors in Scotland and Wales are clear. It will allow people in Scotland and Wales the option of applying online for a postal or proxy vote for devolved parliamentary and local elections, or of applying through a traditional paper application.
In Scotland and Wales, voters who wish to apply for a postal or proxy vote in devolved parliamentary or local elections must still complete a paper application form and submit it by post. As we have heard, this Bill seeks to give electors in Scotland and Wales the same choice as others over how they apply for their absent vote for use in Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament, and local elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has said, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru will hold their parliamentary elections in May 2026. It would be hugely beneficial both to voters and to electoral administrators in Scotland and Wales alike if access to the online services is made available in time for those elections. There is a great deal of enthusiasm from the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the benefits, as was made clear to me in my meetings in Cardiff this week with the Scottish Government Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the Bill has been welcomed by those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral sectors. My officials work closely with the electoral administration community, and as such I can say with confidence that the Bill will deliver clear benefits for both electors and administrators, in particular by removing the need for duplicate applications to be made for devolved and reserved absent votes. That means less time for electors spent making applications and less time for administrators spent processing applications. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, including on technical aspects of the Bill’s implementation.
The changes in the Bill represent just one of the ways that this Government intend to encourage electoral engagement and participation. As I have mentioned, we will also lower the voting age, giving 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds the right to shape their future at the ballot box. We will set out plans to further strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage participation in democracy. We are working in partnership with the electoral sector to bring about the changes in this Bill and the many other changes we are seeking to make.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her tireless work on this important Bill. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his and his party’s support for the Bill, for which I am glad there has been wider cross-party support. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for taking such strong interest in the Bill and for coming here on a Friday to speak in support of it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith once again for her work, and I look forward to working with colleagues to ensure that the Bill passes. I hope very much that Members will support the Bill’s measures and ensure that it advances to the other place.
With the leave of the House, I call Tracy Gilbert to wind up.
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI have only a few minutes in which to speak, but I should be happy to write to Members to provide further details.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) on securing this important debate. The turnout and the contributions from other Members demonstrated their strongly held views and passionate commitment to their constituencies, and illustrated the challenges facing our post-industrial areas, which are deep, structural and long-term.
My hon. Friend drew attention to regional inequalities that have been exacerbated in recent decades. We have a responsibility and a duty to turn that around, and the Government are committed to doing so. The devolution agenda is central to that work and is one of the key areas on which my Department is leading, devolving power and budgets so that local areas can shape their future and enable all communities to benefit, and ensuring that those historic inequities are addressed. The Government have already given local authorities an additional £3.4 billion in grant funding, and we are also developing a long-term housing strategy. We have committed ourselves to billions of pounds of investment in housing, and are investing £1.5 billion in our plan for neighbourhoods.
My hon. Friend, and others, raised a number of issues related to the industrial strategy. I know that the Business Secretary will be following closely the points that have been raised about support for the ceramics industry and broadband and ensuring that the industries in these communities are harnessed. Members rightly raised the subject of steel, and they will be aware of the work that the Business Secretary has done in that regard. The investment zones are key to economic growth and development, and the industrial strategy is, of course, vital. The last Government made many promises of an industrial strategy, but it did not happen, and we are determined to address that.
As we announced last week, the Government have committed a record £2.5 billion of investment for fusion energy, including support for a prototype fusion energy plant located in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That project alone will generate more than 10,000 jobs. This Government are committed to renewing our economy, tackling regional inequalities, supporting—
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill Committees
Tracy Gilbert
It is my pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I was very happy about the unanimous support the Bill received on Second Reading, and look forward to examining it in detail today.
The health of our democracy depends on ensuring that all electors are able to participate in the process to choose who represents them. While many people vote in person, there are those who face challenges that make that difficult or impossible, so absent voting arrangements—the option to vote via post or proxy—are vital. In October 2023, the online absent vote application service was introduced, allowing voters to apply online for postal or proxy voting arrangements for the first time. It offered a digital alternative alongside the traditional paper application process.
The online service is already available to electors in Great Britain for UK parliamentary elections, and for police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. In England, the service is also available for all local elections. However, voters in Scotland and Wales are currently at a disadvantage. At devolved elections—that is, elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd Cymru and local councils—electors must still complete and submit paper forms to apply for postal or proxy votes. The Bill aims to address that disparity.
The benefits of the new online service were made evident during the 2024 general election. Government data shows that over 1.5 million people in Great Britain applied for a postal or proxy vote in the lead-up to the election, and between the announcement of the election on 22 May 2024 and the absent vote application deadline, 84% of postal vote applications and 93% of proxy vote applications were submitted online. The Bill’s purpose is to extend the same digital application options to voters in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections, thereby ensuring consistency across Great Britain. In particular, the Bill seeks to provide that consistency in time for the May 2026 devolved elections. To be clear, the Bill does not remove the paper application route; it simply gives voters an additional, more convenient option to apply online, should they choose.
Respect for devolution is central to the proposals in the Bill, which has been carefully drafted to ensure that the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru are upheld. The proposals have been discussed with Ministers in both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have agreed to all elements of the Bill. By passing this legislation, we can remove unnecessary barriers and make it easier for voters in Scotland and Wales to participate in our democracy, by providing an online absent voting application option.
Clause 1 will enable regulations to be made that will allow electors in Scotland and Wales to make and submit applications online for absent voting arrangements for local elections through the UK digital service. Currently, electors in Scotland and Wales can make an application for an absent voting arrangement using the UK digital service only for reserved elections, such as a general election. The provisions in the clause will change UK Government legislation to allow Scottish and Welsh electors to make and submit applications online for devolved local elections as well.
To support the integration of the service, the clause enables regulations to be made to apply to devolved absent voting applications the same identity-check requirements as are used in reserved absent voting applications. A national insurance number check will be added to devolved absent voting applications, as is already the case for absent voting applications for reserved elections. The clause will also enable regulations to capture the signature required for postal and proxy vote applications digitally.
The addition of the identity check will make the requirements to apply for a postal or proxy vote the same for all types of election in Scotland and Wales. That will reduce the risk of electors becoming confused about what arrangements they have in place for different types of election, and will give them confidence in the ongoing security of the electoral system by ensuring that postal and proxy votes are applied for only by the voter whose name will be on the ballot. The clause also provides a route for any elector who is unable to provide a national insurance number to submit documentary evidence to confirm their identity.
Clause 1 also amends the time for which postal voting arrangements for local elections remain valid in Scotland and Wales. Currently, postal voting arrangements are potentially indefinite, with a signature refresh required every five years for local and devolved parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. The clause will set a maximum time of three years, to align the period with UK arrangements. That is important for electors, who might find it confusing and inconvenient to have different postal voting arrangement lengths for different types of election. A more frequent opportunity to review their voting method, combined with the ease of being able to apply online, supports the elector in ensuring that their arrangements remain the best option for them.
Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments that will enable Scottish and Welsh Government Ministers to make transitional provisions for proxy voting arrangements for devolved local government elections. As the Bill currently stands, the power to make transitional provisions for proxy voting arrangements sits with UK Government Ministers. The amendments transfer that power to devolved Government Ministers. The adjustment is proposed to maintain consistency with existing electoral legislation, in which it is standard for such powers to reside with devolved Government Ministers and to be scrutinised by devolved legislatures. Allowing transitional provisions for proxy arrangements to be made through Cardiff Bay and Holyrood will mean that provisions related to devolved local government elections will be made in the appropriate devolved Parliament.
In addition to ensuring consistency, the amendments will provide a practical benefit. As many hon. Members noted on Second Reading, a key aim of the Bill is to deliver the changes in time for the May 2026 Senedd Cymru and Scottish Parliament elections. There is a lot to do between now and then to achieve that aim, and this approach will be helpful and appropriate to maximise the chances of delivering the changes in time for those elections.
The Bill allows the devolved Governments to move swiftly to implement the changes needed to enable online absent voting applications, and the amendments provide for them to make transitional proxy voting arrangements through their own Parliaments. To achieve the desired effect, the amendments will amend proposed new paragraph 5ZB(1) of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, so that the devolved Governments may provide for the expiry of some or all devolved election proxy voting appointments as part of transitional arrangements.
Clause 2 will enable regulations to be made to allow electors in Scotland to make and submit applications online for absent voting arrangements for Scottish parliamentary elections through the UK digital service. It includes provisions to amend the Scotland Act 1998 for the same purpose of supporting the online journey described in clause 1, but with regard to Scottish parliamentary elections rather than local elections. As the UK digital service is reserved to the UK Government, the provisions also ensure that Scottish Ministers may not make regulations under the clause without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, where those provisions relate to the UK digital service.
Clause 3 will enable regulations to be made to allow electors in Wales to make and submit applications online for absent voting arrangements for Senedd Cymru elections through the UK digital service. Currently, electors in Wales can make an application for an absent voting arrangement using the UK digital service only for reserved elections, such as UK Parliament or police and crime commissioner elections.
Clause 3 includes provisions that amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 for the same purpose as described in clause 1, but with regard to the Senedd Cymru elections rather than local elections. As outlined previously, as the UK digital service is reserved to the UK Government, the provisions ensure that Welsh Ministers may not make regulations under the clause without the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, where those provisions relate to the UK digital service.
Clause 4 will provide for commencement and insert a power to make transitional or saving provision. The transitional power allows provision to be made to align the expiry dates of a person’s postal voting arrangements where they already hold a postal vote for both a UK parliamentary and a devolved election.
The clause also provides for the ending of existing postal and proxy voting entitlements for devolved elections. In some limited cases, it may be necessary to end existing postal and proxy voting arrangements for devolved elections to enable the implementation of the three-year maximum period for postal voting arrangements, to resolve operational difficulties arising from unaligned absent voting arrangements held by the same elector, and potentially to ensure that absent voting arrangements are held by electors whose identity has been properly verified.
Amendments 3 and 4 are technical amendments that are consequential on amendment 1. Clause 5 provides the Bill’s short title and explains the territorial extent of the various clauses. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I look forward to Members’ contributions to the discussion on this important Bill, and I commend the provisions to the Committee.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her continued hard work on the Bill, and for her clear explanation of its clauses—huge congratulations to her for all her work.
On 17 January, I indicated the Government’s support for the Bill, and that support is unchanged. Without the Bill, electors in Scotland and Wales have less flexibility than those in England in arranging the way they wish to vote. That is an unacceptable difference that must be addressed. The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to improve voter registration, and the Bill is clearly attuned to that goal.
As hon. Members have heard, the Bill will allow the online postal vote and proxy vote application services—launched for reserved elections on 31 October 2023 and used in the most recent general election by over 2 million citizens—to be extended to cover all types of election in Scotland and Wales. I am grateful for the support of the Scottish and Welsh Governments for the Bill and for delivering this change. I look forward to seeing the Bill become law and deliver the benefits for electors in Scotland and Wales that my hon. Friend set out clearly.
The Government firmly support the addition to the Bill of the technical amendments that my hon. Friend has tabled. My officials have worked closely with her, as well as with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, to develop the amendments and ensure that the Bill provides the devolved Governments with the transitional powers they require. The amendments will allow the UK Government to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to implement the Bill.
Importantly, the Senedd Cymru and Scottish parliamentary elections are less than a year away, so there is a need to ensure that the Bill is implemented effectively and at pace. It is also important that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have an active role in making the relevant election regulations, and have the necessary powers to ensure a smooth transition for all voters with existing proxy voting arrangements. Having considered those points, and those presented by my hon. Friend, I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
As hon. Members have heard, as things stand any voter in Scotland or Wales who wishes to vote by post or proxy in a Scottish parliamentary, Senedd or local election has to ask for a form to be sent in the post, or print one out, then fill it in and send it to back their local electoral registration office. Some people will prefer to apply using a paper form, and that option will remain, but for a paper form to be the only way to arrange an absent vote is not right for a modern democracy in 2025.
I am very happy to support the Bill, which will allow our electoral system to take full advantage of the benefits of digital online services. Once it passes, implementing regulations will be required to be made by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, with whom the responsibility for devolved polls resides. My officials are working closely with their colleagues in the devolved Governments to help them to prepare those regulations, and to prepare the digital services to be updated once the regulations are in place.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her superb work on making these important changes. I look forward to working with her to progress the Bill through its remaining stages in the Commons and beyond.
Tracy Gilbert
I thank you, Mrs Hobhouse, and all Committee members, for your time today. I also thank all the officials who drafted the Bill and have supported me through the process thus far—I greatly appreciate it. If the Bill passes, it will help tens of thousands of voters in Scotland and Wales to exercise their democratic right. Once again, I commend its clauses, and the minor amendments to them, to the Committee.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“‘devolved election proxy appointment’ means the appointment of a person as a proxy to vote for another person at local government elections in Wales or Scotland, where the appointment was made before a date specified in the regulations on an application under paragraph 6(7) of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000;”.—(Tracy Gilbert.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Commencement and transitional provision
Amendments made: 3, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, leave out from “entitlements” to the end of line 9.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 6, leave out lines 22 to 26.—(Tracy Gilbert.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWe have invested almost £1 billion in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and we have recognised the scandal of temporary accommodation, which we inherited. We are taking action to ensure that there is a cross-Government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Shared Health Foundation recently published a vital report on children living in temporary accommodation, which revealed the scandalous fact that all too often, children living in such accommodation are not safe, secure or able to thrive. Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Labour Government to fix that wrong, on which there has been silence for too long?
My hon. Friend is right. We have inherited record levels of homelessness and rough sleeping, but this Government are determined to take action and address those challenges. Through the third round of the local authority housing fund, we are providing councils with half a billion pounds to house some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and have announced an injection of £2 billion to deliver up to 18,000 new affordable social homes.