Local Government Stewardship Update

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Written Statements

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

All hon. Members will recognise the critical role local councils play in providing essential statutory services to their residents and being accountable to the communities they serve. Where councils do not meet the high standards that we set for local government, it is right that the Government intervene in order to protect the interests of residents. Today I am informing the House of a best value inspection of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, confirming the final decision to appoint commissioners to Nottingham City Council and providing an update on the existing statutory interventions in Slough Borough Council and Birmingham City Council.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

It is a matter of public record that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was subject to statutory intervention under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 between December 2014 and September 2018. This followed an inspection by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and an inspection report published in November 2014, which identified best value failure, particularly in relation to grant making, property disposal and publicity spending. As the then Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Pickles, noted when initiating that intervention on 4 November 2014:

“The abuse of taxpayers’ money and the culture of cronyism reflects a partisan community politics that seeks to trade favours and spread division on the rates. Such behaviour is to the detriment of integration and community cohesion in Tower Hamlets and in our capital city.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 666.]

It is also a matter of public record that Mayor Rahman and his agent, who was also the cabinet member for resources, were found to have been guilty of election offences by an election court in 2015 and were banned from standing for elected office for five years, and that the conduct of making grants amounted to the corrupt practice of bribery under section 113 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Commissioners were withdrawn and functions returned in March 2017 on the condition that the council continued to achieve against its best value plans and report regularly to the Secretary of State on its ongoing compliance with the best value duty. In June 2018 a Local Government Association (LGA) corporate peer review concluded the authority was now “on a positive trajectory” but that to continue to improve, it must

“be forward looking and learn the lessons of the past”.

Following that peer review and recognising the role of the then Mayor and chief executive in providing leadership to drive change, Ministers took the decision to end the intervention in September 2018.

It is clear to me that the council has made significant progress in the past years to improve governance and assurance processes. A recent corporate peer challenge by the LGA highlighted a range of areas in which the council does very well. These include strong relationships with statutory partners and that the council knows its places well. However, some recent changes have the potential to undermine the improvements that allowed the previous intervention to end. These changes include significant churn at the senior management level, which has resulted in a number of interims in the senior management of the council; the use of policy advisers and expansion of the mayoral office, which has reportedly resulted in the creation of a “two council culture”; the review of the constitution; changes to the grant regime, given the election court judgment of 23 April 2015 and the improvements put in place by commissioners previously; weaknesses in the scrutiny function; the decision to bring some services in house and the need to realise substantive savings in the short term. While the Mayor has a clear democratic mandate, and change to the way the council is organised to deliver priorities is not itself a cause for concern, given the history of the council, changes made to arrangements that were necessary to ensure compliance with the best value duty could mean that compliance is now at risk.

To support the council to continue to make arrangements to secure improvement in its governance arrangements and other areas linked to the past intervention, I am clear that the Government require direct independent assurance that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets is compliant with its best value duty. Therefore, I am today informing the House that the Secretary of State has exercised the powers granted to him by Parliament under section 10 of the 1999 Act, to appoint Kim Bromley-Derry CBE DL as lead inspector and Suki Binjal, Sir John Jenkins and Philip Simpkins as assistant inspectors to carry out an inspection of the council’s compliance with its best value duty.

The inspection will occur in relation to specified functions where we have concerns. This includes the council’s functions under part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the strength of associated audit and scrutiny arrangements, with particular attention to potential changes to constitutional arrangements, budgetary proposals and medium-term financial planning, the appointment of senior management posts, the use of policy advisers, the expansion of the mayoral office, the policy and practice of grant making, functions that relate to the appointment and removal of an electoral registration officer and returning officer, the funding of electoral registration and local elections work, the use of resources for elections and the maintenance of the independence of the returning officer, and the arrangements to bring services in house, such as Tower Hamlets Homes and leisure services. Given that our concerns also relate to wider decision-making functions, and whether expectations for effective and convenient local government are being met, the inspection will also consider decision-making in relation to those functions, encompassing leadership, governance, organisational culture, use of resources and impact on service delivery.

The lead inspector has been asked to report findings by 31 May 2024, or such later date as may be agreed.

Once the inspection is complete, we will carefully consider the inspection report. If it shows that the council is in breach of its best value duty, we will then consider whether or not to exercise powers under section 15 of the 1999 Act.

This action is not undertaken lightly, and my Department is committed to providing the council with whatever support it may need to support compliance with its best value duty. I will update the House in due course.

Nottingham City Council

On 13 December 2023, I announced to the House that the Secretary of State was “minded to” appoint commissioners to take over certain functions at Nottingham City Council. Commissioners would replace the existing improvement and assurance board, chaired by Sir Tony Redmond, with immediate effect. I also announced that the commissioner team, if appointed, would consist of three appointments: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation.

These proposals followed the evidence provided in Nottingham City Council improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, also published on 13 December, which included the board’s assessment that the council is still not acting at the required pace to make the necessary improvements; and the council issuing, on 29 November 2023, a section 114 notice due to an inability to balance the budget for 2023-24. The Secretary of State concluded that the council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty. He was minded to escalate the current intervention arrangements in order to secure compliance with that duty and to ensure that the necessary improvements are made at pace for the benefit of the local community.

I invited representations by 2 January 2024 on the intervention package proposed in December from the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Nottingham. The Secretary of State and I have now received the representations on his proposals, which we have considered carefully.

We received a total of 70 representations, including from the authority, the Nottingham Labour group, 16 Labour councillors, local MPs, 35 from members of the public, four local businesses, two community leaders, Unison and eight partner organisations.

The representations presented a mixture of support and opposition for the proposals to appoint commissioners. The representation from the council made clear its preference for retaining the improvement and assurance board, but stated that it will co-operate with commissioners if appointed and noted the proposed commissioner team. It requested that any decision to appoint commissioners is taken expeditiously and that a smooth transition is ensured.

Having considered carefully all of the representations received, and all other developments since the “minded to” decision, the Secretary of State and I are satisfied that no further issues have been raised which were not known at the time we made the “minded to” decision and that no change is warranted to the position outlined in that “minded to” decision. The Secretary of State is satisfied that Nottingham City Council is continuing to fail to comply with its best value duty, and that the necessary improvements are still not being made quickly enough. I am today confirming that commissioners have been appointed to Nottingham City Council and new directions have been issued.

The Secretary of State, as proposed in December, has decided to appoint three commissioners: a lead commissioner, a commissioner for finance, and a commissioner for transformation. This team structure reflects the most pressing priorities at the council as highlighted in the improvement and assurance board’s latest reports, namely weaknesses in finance and transformation, along with an underlying culture of poor governance. The Secretary of State is today appointing individuals to the roles of lead commissioner and commissioner for finance. The chosen commissioners have a proven record of leadership, finance, transformation and strong governance, together with the specific expertise relevant to their functions. We will appoint a commissioner for transformation in due course.

Tony McArdle OBE (lead commissioner) has extensive experience in local government and is the former chief executive of Lincolnshire County Council, and Wellingborough Council. Tony has experience in multiple interventions and best value roles, including as current chair of the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, former lead commissioner at Northamptonshire County Council, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.

Margaret Lee (commissioner for finance) previously worked at Essex County Council where she held the posts of section 151 officer and executive director for corporate and customer services for 13 years. Margaret also has experience of interventions and best value roles, including as former finance commissioner at Slough Borough Council, finance lead on the London Borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, and best value inspector at Thurrock Council.

The commissioners have been appointed for two years, or such earlier or later time as the Secretary of State determines. The Secretary of State is clear that the directions should operate for as long, and only as long, and only in the form, as necessary. The Secretary of State and I wish to again place on record the instrumental role the improvement and assurance board, under Sir Tony Redmond’s leadership, has played in Nottingham City Council’s improvement journey to date. Indeed, the current situation would be even more challenging without their dedication and sustained efforts over the past few years. Commissioners are today replacing the board with immediate effect. The Secretary of State and I are clear that we expect a managed transition from the improvement and assurance board to the commissioners and that momentum is not lost, particularly over the critical budget setting period for 2024-25. We are supportive of the commissioners drawing on reasonable support to facilitate this transition, including from the former board members, if they wish and in the terms they deem reasonable.

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

As with other interventions led by my Department, the council will be directed to meet the costs of the commissioners, along with such reasonable amenities and services and administrative support as the commissioners may reasonably require. The fees paid to individuals are published in appointment letters which are available separately on gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.

Slough Borough Council

Slough Borough Council has been in intervention, with commissioners appointed, since 1 December 2021, after an external assurance review found the council had failed to meet its best value duty. Following the commissioners’ first report on 9 June 2022 the intervention was expanded on 1 September 2022. The intervention is due to end on 30 November 2024, though we have always been clear that the Secretary of State may decide to extend directions beyond this date, or that it may be appropriate to return functions before this time.

When I last updated the House on 14 September 2023 on the commissioners’ third report, it was clear that while progress was being made and there was cautious optimism that the council was moving in the right direction, there were still significant challenges. It was vital that the council accelerated the pace of improvement to make substantial changes in the months ahead.

I am sorry to report that while the fourth report submitted to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2024 does record continued progress in some areas, including the political leadership, children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), procurement and contract management, the pace of improvement has been insufficient and inconsistent given the stage of the intervention, and there is still a lot to do before the council will meet its best value duty.

It is of concern that the council has not accelerated the pace of improvement, especially on tackling organisational transformation and developing a future operating model, and continued financial instability remains a concern. Commissioners are now of the opinion the Government need to consider the nature of the intervention beyond the current timelines. I have today written to commissioners to request a further assessment of progress in April 2024 to allow the Secretary of State and I to decide whether further intervention is required beyond November 2024. That report will need to cover:

An assessment of continued best value failure including progress against each of the directions and against the best value themes published for consultation by DLUHC last summer;

A view on timeframes needed for the authority to deliver its best value duty;

Whether the current directions are sufficient and necessary for the authority to meet its best value duty.

In the immediate term, it is essential that the council demonstrates fresh resolve in implementing the changes required to deliver a sustainable council that the residents of Slough deserve.

I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.

Birmingham City Council

The Government intervened in Birmingham City Council in October 2023, and in January the commissioners wrote to the Secretary of State to set out their initial findings and progress of the intervention. I am today publishing that letter. The financial challenges facing the council are acute and, while it is encouraging that commissioners have made early progress, the situation is worse than they had initially expected. It is vital that the council continues to listen to, and work with, commissioners to ensure their savings plans are delivered to achieve a balanced budget for 2024-25 and beyond. The financial implications of the failed implementation of the Oracle system and the potential equal pay liability also remain a significant challenge. Commissioners have my full support in taking whatever steps are necessary to drive the required improvements. I expect to see demonstrable progress from the council in the commissioners’ first full report, which is due in the spring, and I will update the House on further progress with the intervention and next steps at that time.

Conclusion

I want to acknowledge in today’s announcement the work of the dedicated staff who deliver the important services of councils on which local residents depend. I also want to thank the commissioners for all they do. I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the appointment letters for the Tower Hamlets inspectors, the appointment letters for the Nottingham City Council commissioners together with the directions and accompanying explanatory memorandum, and the report and letter I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.

[HCWS280]

Returning Officer Indemnities

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Written Statements

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

For the purposes of police and crime commissioner and UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions, returning officers and petition officers are statutorily independent officers and are separate from both central and local government. As a result, they are personally liable for the conduct of the elections. It is therefore necessary for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to indemnify police area returning officers and local returning officers in England and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in PCC elections. It is also necessary to indemnify returning officers or acting returning officers in England, Scotland and Wales against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties during UK parliamentary elections and petition officers in respect of recall petitions.

Local authority officers acting in the role of returning officer and similar statutorily independent offices when running polls have traditionally had arrangements which insure them against any risks they face in taking forward their statutory duties at local elections and which may also cover UK parliamentary elections. The cover obtained usually forms part of the local authority’s own insurance arrangements. While this insurance may also cover some risks to which the returning officers and petition officers may be exposed at PCC and UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions, they could be liable for claims of a type not covered by those insurance policies. They could also be liable for claims that exceed the insurance limits in their existing cover. Hence the Government have provided an indemnity to ensure they have effective cover and which can be called on where insurance is not available or inadequate.

The existing indemnities for PCC and UK parliamentary elections run out on 1 May 2024. The existing indemnity for recall petitions runs out on 6 May 2024. Considering this, DLUHC proposes to continue to provide police area returning officers and local returning officers with a specific indemnity for the forthcoming PCC elections on 2 May 2024. Separate indemnities will also continue to be provided for returning officers and acting returning officers at UK parliamentary elections and petition officers in relation to recall petitions. The indemnities for PCC, UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions will indemnify against claims that arise out of the conduct of the relevant officer’s duties where existing insurance cover does not apply. The renewed indemnities will cover costs arising in relation to PCC elections where the date of the poll is on or before 2 May 2028, and for UK parliamentary elections and recall petitions where the date of the poll is on or before 2 May 2029.

Where a relevant returning officer already holds insurance which covers liabilities incurred at a PCC, UK parliamentary election, and recall petition they will be required to claim under that insurance—or to seek to claim under it—before making a claim against the relevant indemnity. Insurance for specific elections has historically provided extremely poor value for money, with claims made under such cover being smaller than the cost of the insurance premium. An indemnity therefore provides better value for money and this approach has been taken for elections since 2009. The indemnities will be limited to the extent set out in the departmental minute. The indemnities are subject to exceptions identified in the minute but are unlimited in terms of the maximum amount covered per claim. If the liability is called, provision for any payment is to be met from the consolidated fund.

On this basis, I have today laid a minute setting out DLUHC’s intention to extend the current arrangements which indemnify the relevant returning officers and petition officers against claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties in relation to PCC elections, UK parliamentary elections, and recall petitions.

Regarding the process of renewing indemnities, since 2009, the Minister concerned has presented a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances, and has refrained from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency. HM Treasury has approved the renewal of these indemnities. However, following further discussion with HM Treasury, it has been agreed that, in line with the contingent liability approval framework, the renewal of indemnities now qualifies as part of Government’s “normal course of business”. This means that any future renewal of indemnities will not require HM Treasury’s consent or future notification of Parliament.

[HCWS275]

Local Government Finance

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Government in this debate. I will just say gently to one of my shadows, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), that if the situation is as bad as she and the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) have painted it, I am surprised that with the exception of those on the Front Bench and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—I know, as a former Select Committee Chairman, that one is obliged to take part in these debates when they relate to one’s Department—we have, against all this horror, had only one Labour Back-Bench contribution. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—at least there is one Labour Member who is concerned about local government and who is not obliged to come and talk about it.

What an exciting prospect we have—the nation sits agog! After 14 years of opposition, a review to look at long-term plans is what the hon. Member for Blaydon tantalisingly holds before the House and the electorate. After 14 years of opposition, one has to ask what on earth they have been doing with the time. A review to look at long-term plans! As always, the Labour party is quick to critique and slow to deliver. What a contrast to the speeches we have heard from Conservative Members.

[Mr Betts]

I take the Minister back to the beginning of the debate, when the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety talked about doing a long-term review of local government finance in the next Parliament. The difference, of course, is that the Government have been in power for the last 14 years and could have done something about it.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I know he broadly agrees with me on this point. Local council chief executives and leaders would have come at the Department with pitchforks and flaming torches if we had dumped a 200-page consultation document on their desks at a time when they were rallying to support their communities during the covid crisis.

This year, as last year, the Government have rightly set our focus on stability, certainty and security. I believe this local government finance settlement delivers on all three.

[Richard Foord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hoare]

No. If the hon. Gentleman is not here for the opening, he cannot take part in the summing up. He has tried that trick before, and it did not work then.

As we heard from the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Sheffield South East and for Blaydon, some of these issues came through in the consultation and in the engagement: support for special educational needs; a long-term view of adult social care; and reform to the funding formula, which so many hon. and right hon. Members have referenced. A reformed funding formula would provide stability and security to our local authorities, and the best way to deliver it is through cross-party working. That is what this House owes them.

When I was asked to take on this job, I had no idea of the complexity and time required to arrive at a local government finance settlement. I thank all colleagues who came along to take part in my parliamentary engagement, which was hugely helpful. I pay tribute to my private office and to officials in the Department—long hours, huge work. I pay particular tribute, not least because her note tells me I have to, to Victoria Peace for all her hard work, as well as to Kate, Nico and others. It has truly been a team effort.

I also thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister for listening to the case that the Secretary of State and I took to them on revising the formula. We said that we would listen, we did and we have acted. Those are the hallmarks of prudent, listening, caring, one-nation conservativism, and it is writ large in this local government finance settlement.

I also pay tribute, as so many others have, to the work that councillors and council officers do, day in and day out, to deliver to make the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society more bearable and a little better, and to create a sense of place in which people wish to live. We salute all of them. Are all of them brilliant? Of course not, but not all of us are brilliant either. But I know that, day in and day out, they focus on doing their best.

I have been called many things, but the hon. Member for Sheffield South East called me “genuinely helpful”. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) called me “the great rural tsar” and a “knight in shining armour”. And my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) called me a “warrior” for rural councils. I am grateful for those comments, and I look forward to their being carved into my headstone in due course.

[Mr Betts]

Not too soon.

[Simon Hoare]

Not too soon, I hope.

I could bore the House with the figures for the local authorities of each Member who has contributed, but those figures are on the public record. They are all going in a positive direction. I think we have started to make significant inroads into addressing those concerns, by turning our thinking to the common themes that have ranged through this debate. The trajectories on SEND and adult social care show no sign of abating, and we need a long-term solution. The formula does need reforming and the Government are committed to doing just that in the next Parliament.

I say to everyone that the transformation and productivity plans, which we see as a key part of the settlement, are all part of underscoring that “Agenda for Change” is a process, not an event; it has to be iterative and organic, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned, we have no money and councils have no money save that which we raise through the taxpayer. We have a duty to ensure that we deliver the biggest bang for each and every buck.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for West Dorset, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) all made important points about how the formula review must ensure that we take into account the differentials in the demand of need in delivering services in a rural or coastal area. I do not believe that we would be right in any definition of the term to say that “need” in an urban area outranks that in a rural or coastal area, or vice versa. Need is need and our local authorities want to play their part in making a difference on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough was not the only one, but she was right to mention the need for other Departments, when they create a new burden or duty on local authorities, to take into account the budgetary impacts that those services have, and I certainly take that on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made that point as well and I agree with all who have made it.

The hon. Member for York Central asked a specific question about the flood recovery framework and business rates. I am delighted to confirm to her that 100% business rate relief is available to business for a minimum of three months where they have been flooded and that that relief can continue to an agreed date until the business is able to be reoccupied for trading. I hope that that gives some comfort to her and to her constituents who have suffered from flooding issues in the recent time.

A lot has been done, services can continue, but the need for reform, cross-party working, blue skies thinking and significant change remains. This settlement is a generous one, with more than half a billion pounds or, I should say, “just” half a billion pounds, available for children’s services and adult social care. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has long advocated for the rural services delivery grant and that is up now to its highest level, at £115 million. I know that rural councils, including that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, will have welcomed that as a useful means of supporting their services.

We understand, applaud and appreciate the important contribution that councils make across our country, and the difference they deliver for their communities. We understand and are going to work with the sector, sector leaders, council leaders and others to ensure a bright, secure and stable future for local councils. We are providing a £600 million uplift, and, on average, a 6% to 7% increase in core spending power for most councils. This is a fantastic opportunity for councils to continue to deliver and for us to support them. I close with the point that many have made: we will deliver better for our constituents when central and local government work in partnership, matched horses pulling in the same direction, serving our communities and making a vital difference for those who need it. I commend the settlement to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2024–25 (HC 318), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 319), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.—(Simon Hoare.)

Resolved,

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 320), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.—(Simon Hoare.)

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (14) of Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of:

(1) Secretary Michelle Donelan relating to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill: Carry-over extension; and

(2) Secretary Alex Chalk relating to the Victims and Prisoners Bill: Carry-over extension not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Blackpool: Regeneration

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for his speech, and for raising this important issue. I will start where he ended, by referring specifically to his words on Waterloo Road and Bond Street. I assure him and his community that Homes England and the council are working closely to find the best possible opportunities in the town for regeneration. I think he will agree— I hope he will—that the local council, with all its local knowledge and understanding, is clearly the best placed organisation to speak to specific plans, but I reassure him of our ambition to level up and secure the lasting change for Blackpool for which he has advocated since he came to this place in 2019.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s patience, and that of the community that he represents, in awaiting further news. Let me reassure him that I fully recognise how important the project is for Blackpool. It continues to be a priority for my Department. I will of course discuss the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), and collectively we will do all that we can with the Treasury to press the case that the hon. Gentleman has made today. I wanted to get those specifics on the record for him.

Let me now say a few words about Blackpool. The hon. Member for Blackpool South does not need me to tell him that it is a town of incredible strength and resilience, allied with enormous potential. Blackpool’s tourism economy alone is worth more than £1.4 billion, supporting in excess of 20,000 jobs. Replying to this debate has reminded me, with a tinge of emotion, of a very enjoyable boyhood holiday that I had with my grandmother in Blackpool. My memory is a little hazier, for reasons that I really cannot recall, with regard to attendance at successive Tory party conferences. It must be something to do with the air that makes the mind a little fuzzy. Of course, the famous scene of Rita Fairclough and Alan Bradley, beaming Blackpool into the sitting rooms of millions of our fellow citizens, left an indelible impression on so many minds—hopefully encouraging people to use the trams, but to be a little careful when alighting from them.

The hon. Gentleman’s speech and work has rightly reminded us that Blackpool should not be seen just as a holiday and tourist destination, as delightful as that is, and as important as it is for the economy. It is home to many businesses and thousands of people, with all their linked housing, education, and health service needs, together with their aspirations for hope, job security, economic growth and a better life for their children. It has been restrained for too long by some deeply rooted societal challenges in health, in housing and in skills and diverse investment, and the hon. Gentleman set out some of those in his remarks. He made the case, as he always does, for the pressing need for regeneration, and the dramatic statistics he used to underpin his argument only served to illuminate that point still further.

That is why the Government have been working in partnership with local leaders to level up the town. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referencing the investment of around £400 million in the town since the Government took office. That is a phenomenal level of investment, and I hope it speaks to the faith and confidence that this Government have in the whole of the north of England and in Blackpool in particular. We support their vision to make Blackpool better, a leading UK tourism destination and a brilliant place in which to live and work, with improved jobs, housing and skills.

We are committed to working in partnership with Blackpool Council to boost opportunity and restore local pride through levelling up housing and living standards and restoring pride of place. Blackpool has received more than £100 million of levelling-up funding alone since 2019, as well as investment helping to unlock a major £300 million development, as the hon. Gentleman said. That included £40 million from round 2 of the levelling-up fund to create that important state-of-the-art learning centre for more than 1,000 people, the Multiversity, which will replace the ageing Blackpool and the Fylde College facilities with new state-of-the-art facilities in the town centre. Another £15 million from round 3 of the fund will improve traffic flow, access to public transport and infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians—all key arteries and routes to see people moving across their town, visitors moving freely, jobs being created and business being done.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the town is benefiting from just shy of £40 million of investment from the towns fund, which is being spent on a host of job creation and tourism-boosting projects. He will know that that includes rejuvenating the famous Blackpool illuminations—and they are indeed famous—to attract more visitors to the town in the usually quiet autumn and winter period. It is the unique selling point of Blackpool to have that marvellous attraction in those darker months of the year. I know the hon. Gentleman’s love of football, so of course I must mention the creation of a new sports village, which combines leisure, education, and residential facilities, while helping to address health deprivation and wellbeing and providing much stronger links with Blackpool Football Club.

The town is also benefiting from the wider Lancashire devolution deal, announced in the autumn statement by the Chancellor, through which £20 million will be provided to Lancashire Combined County Authority, along with a further £1 million to support the authority in the early stages of the deal. The adult education budget will also be devolved as part of the deal—this Government once again trusting local decision makers and local community leaders to help shape the place that they want their people to live in.

As the hon. Gentleman has referenced, housing is a key focus of the partnership working between Government and Blackpool. I thank him again for setting out the opportunities for regeneration in Waterloo Road and Bond Street, which are indeed interesting and exciting. If we are to truly achieve our shared levelling-up ambitions for Blackpool, we must ensure that there is as wide a range as possible of quality homes across different tenures. To unlock Blackpool’s immense economic potential, we want to see more homes, safer homes, better homes, in well-designed neighbourhoods that will help to attract and retain skilled residents in the town.

Part of our approach is through legislation—the Renters (Reform) Bill, which will apply decent homes standards to the private rented sector for the first time. This will ensure that tenants benefit from homes that are safe and decent, and will support the Government’s ambition to reduce the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030—and one hopes that we will exceed that target. We know, of course, that the majority of landlords already provide decent housing and a good service for their tenants, but there is always room for improvement. The decent homes standard will help landlords by simplifying and clarifying requirements, and establishing a level playing field, backed up by consistent enforcement.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are running a pilot for the decent homes standard in Blackpool to improve standards in areas that are in greatest need, as part of our mission to halve the number of non-decent homes by 2030. The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, was in Blackpool in January, when he had the opportunity to see some of the fantastic work being undertaken locally, with Government support, to improve the standards of homes in the town.

Physical regeneration of the built environment is vital if we are to truly level up Blackpool. As the hon. Member for Blackpool South is aware, my Department, alongside Homes England, has been working closely with the council to develop transformational plans to improve the quality of housing. I hope that we will be able to say more about that in due course.

The hon. Gentleman has advocated so strongly for his town, as he always does. He need not convince me—he preaches to the choir, if you like—that Blackpool has incredible potential. I am proud of the work that this Government are doing, in partnership with local leaders and with him, to level up the town. I thank him once again for raising this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Distress in Local Authorities

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, it certainly is doing so. I have just produced a report about local government audit. There is a real problem there. If accounts have not been audited for three years, as in most cases, but probably longer in other cases, how on earth do we know what is happening in local council finances? Certainly, getting local audit on an even keel by the end of this year is very important, but where accounts are qualified, as they will be, councils should not be blamed for that; it is the problem of the local audit system, and we really must sort that out.

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

On behalf of the Government, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee and all his colleagues on it for the work that they do in general, and for the report in particular. I will obviously study it with great care, and respond in the usual way. He made a number of points. I think we can all agree that certainty and security for the local government sector are important, and I concur with his view that there is clear merit in multi-year settlements. I also agree that whoever is standing at the Dispatch Box in the role of local government Minister after the next general election—I pray to God that it will be me, and I hope that my prayers will be answered—reforms will always be difficult and complex. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) sees any merit in establishing some cross-party working and blue-sky thinking on the issue, in order hopefully to land something that can deliver certainty and security for five, 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, to give comfort to local government leaders, section 151 officers and others.

[Mr Betts]

While I might not completely agree with the Minister’s prayers, I agree that if we are to sort this out for the long term, particularly social care funding, we need a system that has general support. The Committee has called for that in the past. What we did on pensions reform a few years ago, cross party, has stuck, so there is merit in that suggestion. Whether we can achieve it, I do not know, but we ought to try.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and her forward notice of it. Clearly, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of Ministers’ remarks, but at the same time we want them to be accurate. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what she has had to say, and will ensure that the Secretary of State has it brought to his attention. At the same, given that she is a diligent Member of Parliament, I am sure that she will bring it directly to the notice of Ministers.

[Simon Hoare]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard what the hon. Lady said. It is a serious point. I will ensure that my officials raise it with the office of the Secretary of State this afternoon to ensure that the situation is clarified. It is a sensitive issue, and her constituent and others will want to have clarity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I cannot do it quicker than that, can I?

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Electoral Commission Strategy and Policy Statement, which was laid before this House on 14 December 2023, be approved.

It is a pleasure to be able to present this important strategy and policy statement for parliamentary consideration this afternoon. We may disagree on many points, but one point on which I hope we can agree is that there are plenty of issues in our political life to raise the blood pressure. Let me say respectfully to the House that this strategy and policy statement is not one of them, for reasons that I shall set out.

The Electoral Commission Strategy and Policy Statement was laid before Parliament on 14 December 2023 for approval by resolution of both Houses within a 40-day period in accordance with section 4C(9)(a) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Let me start by asserting clearly and unequivocally a concern which I know many right hon. and hon. Members have had, and which I wish to nail from the outset. This statement, this strategy, in no way undermines or challenges the robust, legislatively underpinned independence of the Electoral Commission. The commission plays an important part in our national life. It has a key and important role, and the House and, I believe, the country recognise that.

The statement gives the Government no new teeth or power. How, if and when the commission faces into the guidance is up to it and the scrutiny of Mr Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, whose role is exercised on behalf of the House. The commission, as is set out in the 2000 Act, only has a “duty to have regard”. We are not saying—not least because we cannot, and do not wish to—that the commission “will” or “must”. We create no new duty to report to the Government, only a duty for the Speaker’s Committee to maintain its relations with the commission. The commission will continue to report only to Parliament, as it has done since its creation in 2000. The statement—I want to make this very clear, because this is a twin approach of independence—does not politicise Mr Speaker’s Committee or the Office of the Speaker in respect of its commission functions.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I have been listening to what the Minister is saying with a bit of disbelief. If the commission will not have to take any notice of the statement or act on it, but need only have regard to it, what is it here for? If “having regard to” means “taking seriously and doing something about”, that applies both to the commission and to Mr Speaker’s Committee, which has to oversee the commission and its work. Does that not compromise the neutrality and independence of Mr Speaker as well as the Electoral Commission? This is a very serious matter.

[Simon Hoare]

If that were true, it would be a serious matter, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have huge respect, and who chairs the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee with much distinction—that I do not see it that way, and neither do the Government. However, he takes me from my explanation of what the statement is not, to explaining why we are approving it. That is the nub of this issue. We see—I see—the role of this Government and of any party that has the honour to be in government in the United Kingdom as that of a pro tem custodian of our democracy. That is why we have election law, and why I am the elections Minister. Democracy is, as we discussed last week in the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, a fragile flower under huge pressure.

We believe that the statement is timely, not least because of the raft of changes that have flown through and been delivered by statutory instrument from the recent Elections Act 2022. We are also hugely cognisant of the threats to the robustness and resilience of our democracy presented by overseas interference, fake news, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence. The solemn role of pro tem custodian, and holding the flame of democracy while we serve in government, are important.

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

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

It is important to underpin, rather than undermine, the work of the commission by standing shoulder to shoulder with it in the important work that has been set before it, which I will come to when I have taken the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[John McDonnell]

I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we warned in our report about the threat to the independence of the commission from the Government’s legislation regarding the strategy statement. I can understand where the Minister is coming from when he says that we are not using the expression “must” because that would be a direction, but the Government are repeatedly using the expression “should”. The question in my mind is: if the commission ignores this “should”, what happens? There is an implied threat around the “should”.

[Simon Hoare]

The right hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me to the next part of my remarks about “should”, “would” and “must”. Let us just canter through, with some degree of attention and seriousness, the priorities set out in the statement. In all seriousness—I hope the House knows me well enough to know that when I use that phrase it is not just parroting a line; I am serious in what I am about to say, because it is important—I really would question whether any hon. or right hon. Member of this House, of any party, would take exception to anything in the statement.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister answer my question?

[Simon Hoare]

If the right hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, he will have his question answered. He asks his question in his way and, in the words of Frank Sinatra, I shall answer it in mine.

The first paragraph rehearses this key point:

“The Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for giving guidance and support to Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers in undertaking electoral registration and conducting elections and recall petitions effectively and in accordance with the law.”

Anybody disagree with that? No. Paragraph 2 states:

“The Chair of the Commission has the responsibility in law for acting as the Chief Counting Officer at national referendums in the UK…and the staff of the Commission support the Chair in that role, when it is required, to work through local electoral authorities to deliver such events.”

The delivery of smooth and seamless referenda is not, I would suggest, a revolutionary power grab by His Majesty’s Government.

Paragraph 3 states:

“The government believes the Electoral Commission has an important role to play in maintaining the integrity of our elections and public confidence in that integrity.”

I do not think that point will get the Division bells ringing. In answer to the question from the Chair of the Select Committee, paragraph 3 continues:

“The duty to have regard does not require the Commission to give lesser priority to, or to ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the Commission’s strategy, priorities, how it should discharge its duties (including day-to-day operations) and the allocation of its resources, as agreed by the relevant parliaments. It will be for the Commission to determine how to factor the Statement into its decision-making processes and corporate documents such as the Five-Year Plan.”

Paragraph 4 states:

“One of the government’s policy priorities is ensuring our democracy is secure, fair, modern and transparent.”

One could easily transpose the word “government” for “Parliament” there. Who will argue with ensuring that our democracy is secure? Who will argue that our democracy should not be fair, modern, or transparent? Paragraph 4 goes on to say that it is a priority to ensure

“that those who are entitled to vote should always be able to exercise that right freely, securely and in an informed way;…that fraud, intimidation and interference have no place in our democracy;…that we are the stewards of our shared democratic heritage which we keep up to date for our age.”

That is my custodian point again.

Paragraph 5 states:

“One of the leading government objectives is tackling electoral fraud”.

Anyone in this House in favour of electoral fraud? I did not think so—and rightly so. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that the commission should

“support continued effective delivery of voter identification by raising public awareness about the requirement to show an approved form of photographic identification before taking part in UK parliamentary elections, local elections in England and elections in Northern Ireland”.

It has done that in Northern Ireland for the last 20 years or so. This issue was raised in close questioning from the Lords Constitution Committee just the other month. The important role of the Government, the commission and other agencies in raising the profile and public awareness of voter identification was a matter that we discussed at some length.

[Mr Betts]

I am listening to the Minister reading out a list of the things that the commission is obliged to do by law anyway, so why he has to restate them in this paper, I do not know. The clear advice to the Committee and to the Speaker’s Committee was that if certain items were identified as priorities for the commission, other things would per se be of lesser priority. For example, overseas voter registration is a priority, but the registration of voters in this country, where 8 million people are not on the register, is not listed as a priority. This skews the work of the Electoral Commission, whether the Minister likes it or not.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman was obviously so busy trying to find his rebuttal point that he did not listen to my answer to the first question. I set out clearly that the duty to “have regard” does not require the commission to give lesser priority to, or ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the commission’s strategy and priorities, and how it should discharge its duties. The statement in no way undermines, countermands or double-guesses any work of the commission.

The paper goes on to talk about tackling electoral fraud, which I know we would all wish to do. Crucially, it also talks about the role of the commission in working with returning officers and others to ensure the maximum opportunity for those with disabilities to take part in the ballot on the day and in polling stations. Nobody in this place, or the other place, would think that was not a noble aim.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

And at the very mention of noble aims, I give way to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[John McDonnell]

I come back to the fact that this statement in effect sets priorities for the commission, and that has not only operational consequences but budgetary consequences. What are the consequences for the commission if, like me, it thinks the Government’s statement is daft and completely ignores it?

[Simon Hoare]

I just do not see that happening, because the commission understands the importance of the statement. It is not a directional document; it is an augmenting document. It says—because there are difficult things facing our democracy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—that the Government, not a party Government but Government as an entity, are in lockstep with the commission, in full support of the work that it does to preserve, protect and enhance our democracy. We felt that it was timely for the Secretary of State to provide a statement to augment and clarify matters that flow from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Act and subsequent statutory instruments.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is right to say that the commission is, in any case, doing the things set out in the statement, in whole or in part. It will be entirely up to the commission to set its priorities from the list, and to give greater or lesser attention to matters as needed. For example, it could say, “Well, that has already been done, and this is all in hand, but we really need to augment this matter here.” The voter authority certificate is a prime example. There are things that we would all expect the commission to spend a certain amount of time on, in order to raise awareness of them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Minister is doing a commendable job, given that he has clearly inherited a piece of legislation from a different era that was part of a different agenda. He said that things might need clarifying, and then mentioned the voter authority certificate. Can he give us examples of other things that need clarifying? What does he think the Electoral Commission is doing that is wrong, and that needs to be righted by this statement?

[Simon Hoare]

Nothing. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for that, then he has completely misunderstood the purpose of the statement and the operational independence of the Electoral Commission, and apportioned malign intentions to the Government. I know that he wants to say, “Oh, this is mission creep because that is something else, and the Government are trying to take over an independent body”—it is nothing of the sort.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that others wish to speak. They can read the statement for themselves, but I hope that the examples I have given indicate that the strategy and policy statement augment what the Electoral Commission does. My Department and I have good relations with the commission. We never seek to direct. We admire and respect the work that the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission does in discharging its duty. I have the honour of being a member of that Committee, as do the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East; the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins); the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith); and others—so it is not even weighted in His Majesty’s Government’s favour.

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

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

This is a benign statement, supporting the commission in its work, addressing the changes introduced post the Elections Act 2022 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2023. It is all part of our process to ensure that our electoral system is resilient, open, transparent, secure and has the maximum access to all who have the eligibility to cast a vote on whichever election day it may happen to be. How they vote is entirely up to them; how the commission sets its priorities is entirely up to it. Mr Speaker and his Committee will hold the commission to account, not Parliament. There is no mandate in the statement that the commission has to provide a statement or report, annually or quarterly, to my Department or to the Secretary of State. The usual communication channels between the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Commission remain.

Given the fragility of our democracy and the outside pressures facing most western democracies today, I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that, in trying to ascribe ill intention, Machiavellian motivation and some sort of surreptitious purpose of undermining democracy to this benign statement of good will, they demean themselves and they demean and weaken democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Betts]

Yes, perhaps the Government ought to pay more attention to those problems rather than to one that seems not to exist. The Minister has not told us what problems the statement is intended to address.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

I think the Minister is going to help us with that.

[Simon Hoare]

I politely ask the Chair of the Select Committee where in my remarks opening the debate I talked about other regulatory bodies and tried to rank them pari passu with the Electoral Commission. I will tell him where I did it: I did not.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister’s right hon. friend the Member for Norwich North raised it, and she was the Minister who took the Bill through Parliament, so it is worth taking seriously what she had to say.

The Minister did not tell us what problems the statement is meant to address. It would be helpful if he did so. [Interruption.]

[Mr Betts]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to encourage the Minister to be helpful to us. Obviously I am struggling in that regard.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Betts]

Is the Minister now going to be helpful?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am trying to be helpful. Read Hansard. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question three times. If he neither understands nor can hear the answer, that is not my fault.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister is clearly trying to be helpful but not succeeding.

In the end, it comes back to the point that the Electoral Commission’s priorities do not have to be the Government’s priorities, and the Government have no right to direct the commission in its work. Again I ask: what problem is the motion designed to address? If the Minister cannot articulate what the problem is and how the statement will change the behaviour of the Electoral Commission, frankly every Member of this House is busy and has lots of things to do. Have we just wasted 90 minutes of our time, because in two years we will come back and find that today’s motion had no impact? I rather hope that that is the case, because the other scenario would be that the Government are interfering in the Electoral Commission’s work, which is the worse of the two ways of looking at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. To address the last part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), I have been very grateful to colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have said some rather nice and kind words about me personally. I will not press to a Division the question of whether I deserve those nice and kind words—I am not sure how my side of the House would vote.

I say this in all seriousness: I hope the House knows me well enough to know that if I thought the intentions that sit behind this statement, the Elections Act, or any of the statutory instruments that have flowed from that Act were what hon. Members have asserted they were, I would have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister. As a democrat—as somebody who has stood in elections, who has lost and won elections, and who has served in this place, if only for eight and a half years—I can say that there is nothing malign or mission-creep in anything that we are discussing today. I am not expecting that sentiment to change the votes of Opposition Members, but I say it sincerely. A number of Members have asked where the statement came from. Its genesis is, of course, to be found in sections 4A to 4E of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, inserted by the Elections Act 2022—that is where it comes from.

I will try to address some of the comments that have been made. My shadow, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), said that there was a political agenda; there is not. We paid full regard to the submissions of consultees, and we took a different view from them. That is perfectly fine. It does not undermine the system, nor is it a dangerous politicisation of the commission.

I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), a distinguished former elections Minister, was right when she referred to this as a reasonable vehicle. She asked about my discussions with the commission. I have had a very useful meeting with its senior team, at which we discussed a range of issues and how we can work together to support and buttress our democracy. Those conversations will continue. The statement is iterative and organic, and it can of course be refreshed to reflect issues and challenges as they arise in the field of AI, overseas involvement and so on. The House will notice that I use the word “as”—as they arise—not “if”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—I call him an hon. Friend because he is a friend—asked: where is the parliamentary sovereignty? When the Division bell rings, that is the exercise of Parliament’s sovereignty, and he will vote accordingly.

The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), in an rather confusing way, said he thought the statement was wrong because it did not mandate the commission or tell it what to do, and then went on in almost the same breath to say how frightful it would be if the statement could do that. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is proving to be, on this issue and on this issue alone, a little bit of a pushmi-pullyu, because the independence of the commission is absolutely safe and sacrosanct.

Let me read back into the record from the statement that the

“duty to have regard does not require the Commission to give lesser priority to, or to ignore, any of its other statutory duties. The Electoral Commissioners and the Commission’s executive leadership will remain responsible for determining the Commission’s strategy, priorities, how it should discharge its duties”,

and so on and so forth, within its five-year plan. The commission will not be reporting to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, No. 10 or the Cabinet Office. It will continue to report to Parliament through Mr Speaker’s Committee, using the functions it has.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will not, because the House has a lot of business today. Let me address the points that have been raised by others, because I want to give due attention to the points they have made.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) really should have a word with her own Front Benchers about overseas voters. Let me quote from her hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on the statutory instrument we took upstairs on Wednesday 6 December 2023, when, from the Labour Front Bench, she told the Committee:

“We do not oppose the principle of overseas voting and giving citizens who still have a strong connection to the UK a voice in our elections, and that includes people who still have a strong connection to our local services and communities”.—[Official Report, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 6 December 2023; c. 6.]

So the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is entirely out of step with her hon. Friend on the Front Bench.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the Minister for giving way this time. I wish to object in that the Minister is very much misportraying the point I made in my remarks. The point I made is that it is a political decision to decide who gets to vote, and I was comparing 16-year-olds in the UK with someone who had lived outside the UK for 16 years. That was the point I raised, and I do not think it is at all inconsistent with those on my own party’s Front Bench.

[Simon Hoare]

I heard the hon. Lady very clearly say that in principle she was opposed to overseas voters. If I misheard her, then I apologise, but that was certainly the thrust of the remarks she made.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) describes the statement as a political agenda. Is improving disabled access having a political agenda? If so, or if that is the charge, I am going to plead guilty. Is cracking down on electoral fraud? If that is the charge, clap me in irons. Is ensuring that the rules of registration and the importance of voter ID are promoted? If so, take me off to the Tower. I plead guilty as charged.

[Mr Betts]

The Minister rather misportrayed what I just said. I said that this statement either seeks to change how the Electoral Commission operates, in which case it is interference with an independent body, or does not seek to do that, in which case, what is the point of it?

[Simon Hoare]

The point, as I have consistently said, is to augment and buttress the work of the commission, and to give some reference tools in Parliament’s assessment. I also want to take issue with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—again, I hope I heard her correctly—who prayed in aid the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, as if it was an ancient symbol of our democratic function that we have repealed. It sat for five years as a way of giving confidence to the markets that a coalition of two parties could deliver the clean-up strategy for what her party had left behind in 2010. So its repeal was not a dismantling of some great, permanent piece of our democratic architecture.

The hon. Member for Brent Central seemed to refer to this as a vendetta against the commission. Let me just invite her—[Interruption.] She referred to it as a vendetta—I wrote the word down. The record will say that she thought that Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was waging a vendetta against the commission because the commission had said something with which he disagreed; that was the word the hon. Lady used and I will play it back to her advisedly. I took a contemporaneous note of the word as she used it. Let me just invite her to consider that if we wished to wage a war against the commission, we could neuter it, fetter it, force it to report to us and we could abolish it, but we haven’t and we won’t. Why won’t we, why aren’t we? It is because we know that the commission is important, we respect its work, and we honour, cherish and guard its independence. We believe that this statement and the previous legislation that this House has put through will augment the accountability of the commission to Parliament and, in so doing, serve this as its sole and only purpose: to build on Parliament’s and the public’s confidence in its work. The commission was and is independent, and it will continue to be independent. I commend this motion to the House.

Question put.

Somerset Council: Funding and Governance

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I always find—my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), the Minister and you, Mr Pritchard, all know this—that the best speeches in this place are the ones that you write yourself, and not the ones you deliver in parrot fashion after they have been written by someone else.

As my hon. Friend said, in the last few months we have worked together to try to solve this problem. Let us look back at the history of the situation. I will gently say that it was going on under the coalition Government. We made representations then and I do not remember being completely supported by David Laws, David Heath, Tessa Munt or—I have forgotten now, but I think that is about it. That is a problem.

It is easy to cast aspersions, but let us look at the reality. I am very grateful to the Minister; I must give credit where credit is due. He has worked very hard to make sure that he gives the time that is needed to all these councils to get this situation sorted. The point was made that £5 million is very little. Yes, of course it is, but it is a start.

I do not think it is any secret that tomorrow the Minister is meeting the leader of Somerset Council, Bill Revans, and his team to talk about the next phase. My conversations with the Minister—I do not know how many there have been, but there have been an awful lot—have always been constructive and helpful. We are in a crisis—we must be absolutely frank about that.

I absolutely abhor having in commissioners. Having suffered that, as I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, who was very noble about it, I know it is an absolute disaster. If they come in to Somerset, I can tell hon. Members exactly what will happen. They will shut the recycling centres, stop the buses and pull back on the funding for roads, for the most vulnerable and for many others, and the money we give to colleges such as Yeovil, Bridgwater & Taunton, and Strode just will not happen. No matter what we do—parliamentarians, councillors or anyone else; parishes, towns or whatever—it will make no difference at all.

The problem we have is that councils such as Taunton, I think Yeovil, Minehead and others are raising council taxes way out of proportion with what they need to do. I am worried that they will raise them so high to take on services that the county has been running up to now, and they will not be able to cope. In all my 23 years in this place, I have seen when councils have taken on assets, and after a while they just cannot cope. That is partly down to the people they have, partly down to the rises in costs that we all have, and partly down to the fact that these things are damned complicated, and that goes not just go for the loos, but for much more.

We really must talk with the Minister about how we make sure that when assets are given to other councils—mainly town councils, because it is more difficult to do for parishes—they are able to deal with those assets in the future. Taunton is to have a 200% increase in council tax, and that is huge, but it wants to take on a lot of things, and Taunton covers the whole of Taunton—not a bit of it, but the whole thing. I am not going to cast aspersions about whether this is right or wrong; I am just making the point that the assets that go over to such councils still have to be managed.

The other issue I have is about the superb colleges we have, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I have talked about Yeovil College, and Bridgwater & Taunton College. We have come an enormous way in Bridgwater, and these colleges are superb. When I first came in all those years ago—and let us be honest—they were not as good as they are now. There has been a huge amount of work by the teams in both those colleges, and we have created proper colleges for Somerset. The debate goes on, and the conversations between Bridgwater & Taunton, Strode and Yeovil are brilliant. They are really looking at how we move on in the future.

Another point, and the Minister must be aware of this, is that not only are we building the biggest infrastructure project in Europe, which is Hinkley Point, but we are about to start building the Gravity site. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has been very helpful, with his wonderful workforce at Westland and so on. This is a 423 acre, 11 million square foot battery factory for Jaguar Land Rover under the Tata Group. It is a phenomenal investment in the west country, with 9,500 jobs, and it is crucial to the future of our beautiful county.

In the time I have left as an MP—God willing, and the electorate willing, I will still be an MP, but not for Bridgwater—I will be absolutely dedicated to getting this to the stage where we have the infrastructure, but we need a functioning council. We have to have that. It is going to be difficult for the council, because it has to put in some money, and we will have massive infrastructure costs. I do not want to have to come back to the Government in however long it is—in the next six months —and say, “Look, we haven’t got the money to put in the roads, the railway and the college campuses for Bridgwater & Taunton and for Yeovil.” We must get this sorted.

In the short time I have left, I say to the Minister that this is going to be a partnership. As I have said, I have worked with Bill Revans for a very long time, and I have enormous respect for him. He is trooping on, and not perhaps in the best circumstances, as we all know. He is still there fighting his corner, as he has long done—he stood against Tom King in 1992. He is a long-term, committed politician for whom I have a great deal of respect; as hon. Members know, that is not always the case.

We have to work together to get the funding we need to stabilise the situation, and this cannot wait until after the election. I have no idea about the policy of the Labour party—I genuinely do not know—but I know the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) will be sympathetic because I was in opposition when I came in and I will probably be in opposition when I go out. However, when I had issues when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, they were listened to, and I can only say that I am very grateful for everything, but we need to do this now, Prime Minister—

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

I am not the Prime Minister.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Yes, I know. I do apologise. Minister, we need to sort this now, and that conversation is crucial. We need to keep this going as much as we can. We need to take it forward in the constructive way in which it has been dealt with so far. I am one of the worst offenders in this place for taking it to the lowest common denominator and attacking everybody, but this is a time when we cannot do that. There are too many vulnerable people whose futures and wellbeing are at stake, so I say to the Minister: please, just keep talking to us.

Minister, you have been brilliant. I cannot fault you or the Secretary of State. I cannot fault the way in which you have dealt with Bill and his team, Duncan Sharkey and everybody in Somerset. At every meeting I have had, we have talked about how we have work to do, and we will do it. We have discussed what needs to be done. I am conveying that to Bill, the Minister will convey that tomorrow, and we will work on it. In the next few months we have to come up with a formula that safeguards those vulnerable people. My constituency covers Exmoor. The problems we face with things like social mobility and access in one of the most rural parts of England will be devastating if we cannot come to an agreement.

Minister, we are here to do the best for our constituents; we always have been. That is why you do it, why I do it, why my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil does it, and why everyone else does it. If you can come halfway, we can come the other half. That will be most important. You could use Somerset as a guinea pig in order to come up with a formula that will get this working, so that we can work with you and land what we need to do. I am meeting the Chancellor tomorrow. I am going to put the plea to him and ask him to be generous—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Pritchard, and to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh). We have covered a lot of ground. The danger of covering a lot of ground is that it leaves the Minister with precious little time to respond to that ground, so I shall canter through as quickly as I can, with some barely connected bullet points.

I am grateful for the comments made by those who participated in this afternoon’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil said that we all want to see top-quality services for our communities. My take, and I say this as a party politician, is that the public out there do not really care what type of council is delivering the service. When push comes to shove, they are not that motivated by which party, if any, is doing it either. They just want to know that the services are there when they need them and that the council can deliver those services with resilience and robustness.

In response to the point made by my friend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), I would gently remind him that in broad terms the funding of local government formula today is that which we inherited, authored and written by his party when in government. I think we all recognise that the formula needs change. Certainly, as late as last week, the Government committed to a fundamental review in the next Parliament. I am tempted to say that it would have been done had it not been for covid, which took up significant bandwidth within local government, but it is a job that needs to be done.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and for Yeovil, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), are right to point out that there is a clear role for local government, not just in delivering statutory service, but in making place and effecting beneficial change. My hon. Friends were right to point to the excellent Yeovil College. About 40% of the students of Yeovil College come from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). The principal, Mark Bolton, provides exemplary leadership. My hon. Friends spoke of Bridgwater & Taunton College, about which I am afraid I do not know, but if it is half as good as Yeovil College, it is excellent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil talked about the role of trying to attract business and he is absolutely right, because business rates help to grow the services. If he thinks of Leonardo and Yeovil College in his own constituency, the giga-factory investment not far from Bridgwater that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset spoke about, and the massive investment in Hinkley Point C, I would suggest that Somerset as a rural county is very much punching above its weight in economic activity. That is to be applauded, and the role of Somerset Council in helping to foster that environment is to be noted and the council congratulated.

What is the basic problem that Somerset faces? The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about money. She said that the Government were not listening. I take issue with her; I do not like taking issue in normal circumstances with the hon. Lady, but I am going to in this case. She said that we need a Government who will listen. I can give the hon. Lady half a billion pounds of listening, which we announced last week. The rural services delivery grant will now stand at its highest-ever level. We are raising the funding floor from 3% to 4%—an ask of the district councils. We have listened.

Part of the underpinning of Somerset going unitary was to deliver efficiencies and savings. For reasons that my officials and I continue to explore and doubtless will touch on in conversations tomorrow, those savings have not manifested themselves. The steam has fallen out of the engine of change. I appreciate any new party coming into an administration will want at least to cast a casual eye over a plan, but to have delayed and prevaricated for as long as it has is, in my judgment, inexcusable because the basic premise of going unitary will have been submitted. The programme of savings and efficiencies will have been looked at by officials in my Department and have been a key part in determining whether Somerset was to go unitary. A very clear and compelling case was put forward.

I know from my experience of when I did it with our colleagues in Dorset, including my right hon. Friend, the former Member for West Dorset, Sir Oliver Letwin, the numbers that we put in were gone over with a fine-tooth comb because there is no point delivering change if there is no tangible and obvious benefit. I urge Somerset Council to build up that head of steam, to put some wind in the sails—I am mixing my metaphors; not unusual for me—and to drive forward the efficiency, innovation and modernisation that underpins the unitary process.

I am not going to comment—I know colleagues have invited me to do so—on the minutiae of the conversations that officials and I are having with Somerset Council. I know that the House would not expect me to do so, but the points I am making in this debate are ones that I have and will continue to make. Somerset’s budget is up 6%—£565.3 million in ’24-’25. There are no cuts anywhere in local government budgets for this coming financial year. We are a Government who have listened. We asked, we heard.

A section 114 notice is often referred to as bankruptcy. It is not bankruptcy in the commercial sense of the term. That is the key message from me. This is not bankruptcy. No Government would ever allow any council to fall over, not because of politics or politicking, but because the vulnerable who need services need to have the comfort and security that those services will be provided. I do not want to scare the most vulnerable in our society and have them suddenly think that at the stroke of a pen and the issuing of a section 114 notice, everything they rely on for their quality of life will suddenly be removed. That would not be the case.

Mention has been made of the levelling-up agenda, which falls within the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil and for Bridgwater and West Somerset are right to make the point that the levelling-up agenda is not reserved solely to our northern and industrial towns, as important as they are to the levelling-up agenda. There is an element of coastal levelling up. There is an element of rural levelling up.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made a point that I have made in every speech in this place since my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I were first elected way back in 2015—with all we have gone through, it feels a lot longer, I am sure he will agree. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was right: the cost of delivery of services in a rural area, which is wider in geography and sparser in population, is by definition going to be higher than in denser urban populations. We do not then move forward and rob Peter to pay Paul and say that the deprivation in a rural area is more important than the deprivation in an urban area, or that need is greater in an urban area compared with a rural area.

Need is need. Deprivation is deprivation. We must meet the two where they manifest themselves in order to make the lives of our fellow citizens better and more comfortable. I am not a Minister who believes in robbing the rurals to pay the urbans or vice versa. I believe in trying to get equity in the system and having a more sophisticated way of recognising and addressing need. I have every confidence that in a review of the formula that would be an absolute kernel of all that we do.

The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton referenced the audit issue, and he was right to do so. It is a serious issue. There are some announcements on that in the not-too-distant future, which I will, of course, share with him in due course through the usual channels. In conclusion, let me say this to the three representatives of the great county of Somerset—not as great as Dorset, I hasten to add. From the Blackmore hills, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to look down on Somerset, but it is a great county. It is full of innovation and good people working hard and paying their taxes. I do not believe that they should be overburdened with taxation to mask deficiencies in the public sector. I think that is something that resonates across this Chamber—indeed, I see the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome nodding in agreement.

A number of Members spoke about the importance of partnership. The central theme since I was appointed in November has been the pivotal, positive partnership between central and local government to achieve for our people, wherever they are and whatever their needs. My door stands open to work with colleagues across the House representing Somerset to ensure that their residents secure the services that they need at a good value-for-money rate. I expect Somerset Council to rise to that challenge, and I look forward to furthering my discussions with it in due course.

Election Finance Regulation

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Written Statements

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

In July 2023, the Government confirmed their intention (HCWS985) to proceed with uprating reserved and excepted party and candidate spending limits and donations thresholds to reflect historic inflation in the years since the respective limits were set between the years 2000 and 2020. The intention to review these thresholds was set out in December 2020, and the Parliamentary Parties Panel was consulted.

Today, the Government have laid before Parliament legislation completing the uprating of candidate spending limits by uprating the limits for candidates at Greater London Authority elections and local authority mayoral elections. The latter will align with the planned new spending limits for combined authority and combined county authority mayoral elections, ensuring parity between mayoralties.

The uprating of election spending limits is necessary as many of the statutory limits, set in absolute terms, have not been uprated in recent times. Some have not changed since 2000, as is the case for Greater London Authority elections. The lack of change in absolute terms impacts campaigning ability, given the increased costs of printing, postage and communication, which is vital for parties and candidates to engage with voters.

Parliament anticipated this, which is why the legislation allows for these limits to be adjusted to account for inflation. The Government’s policy is to increase them so that they are the same in real terms as the original limits set by Parliament.

Furthermore, violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated and will have absolutely no place in our public life. The Elections Act 2022 provides for new measures to tackle intimidation in elections, building on the wider work to address intimidation in public life—as outlined in the written statement of 9 March 2021 (HCWS833).

No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy. To provide clarity on the issue of whether security expenses fall to be regulated under electoral law, the legislation laid today also explicitly exempts reasonable security expenses from contributing to spending limits for political parties, candidates and other campaigners at reserved and excepted UK elections. This will ensure that these limits are not a barrier to providing adequate security during election campaigns.

Many parties and agents already take the view that money spent on the security of a candidate is clearly not money spent promoting that candidate to the electorate; however, the Government believe there are merits in explicitly stating this in law to provide greater clarity.

Together, with the other recent instruments the Government have made, these measures will support continued democratic engagement by political parties and candidates, and facilitate continued freedom of expression whilst ensuring our elections remain safe, free and fair.

[HCWS218]

Holocaust Memorial Day

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

This is the first time I have attended a Holocaust Memorial Day debate, and I have to say that I am rather glad it is. I must be honest with the House that, if I had had any idea of the raw emotion, I might have dodged it, but I am so glad that I did not. It has been sad and it has been frightening, but every word has been worth hearing. I thank the House and all those who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been a true privilege to be here to hear it.

As many right hon. and hon. Members have noted, the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is the “fragility of freedom”. It is not just about the fragility of freedom in emerging democracies or elsewhere in the world; it is about the threat and the challenge to all mature western democracies. Frankly, we have grown complacent about our rights and privileges, and about our freedom to think, speak, write, congregate, worship and pray. Too much of it is under attack, whether by social media, the ease of populism or the search for the simple in a complex world. So much that we hold dear is under pressure, so let us come together, as this debate has shown the House can do at its best, to champion and defend all that we cherish and hold dear to our hearts.

But let us do more. Let us not just be armchair or, indeed, green Bench democrats. Let us be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) suggested, muscular and robust in our stance and in our defence, because in collaborative defence there is courage, there is hope and there is opportunity.

The big numbers of the holocaust make it hard to envisage, as all big numbers and statistics do, so let us pause for a moment not to think of 6 million as just another statistic. I follow the Auschwitz Memorial Twitter feed, or X feed as we now have to call it, and, virtually every day, it presents a picture or pictures of men, women and children. These ordinary folk were starved, taken from their homes, persecuted and incinerated—the true meaning of the word “holocaust”—for their faith. Let us recommit to always seeing these people for what they are, people, fellow human beings, and never as just a statistic, whether they be Jewish, Bosnian, Rwandan or Cambodian.

What we must always remember, as many contributors have reminded us so powerfully today, is that down the centuries the Jewish people have always been forced to look over their shoulders, with pogroms, the holocaust, displacement, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the Dreyfus case. They are a people always worried that they are only temporarily tolerated, rather than permanently welcomed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—I am going to call her my right hon. Friend—added a poignancy to her characteristically brave and bold remarks and thinking by reminding the House that, sadly, this is the last of these debates that she will take part in as a Member of Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, she will be missed but not forgotten. Hers have been important words on this issue, particularly during difficult years for her and Jewish colleagues in her party—thank God that is changing—where she stood bravely on difficult and hostile Benches and made her case, as she did today.

My job is to reply to the debate and respond to speeches, so with the leave of the House I will try to reference a nugget or two from each contribution, because they merit it, as does the seriousness of the issues at hand. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for her words, in speaking for the Opposition, as I am to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who spoke for the Scottish National party. I know that the hon. Member for Blaydon has given me a little more time than the usual channels may have agreed to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, spoke powerfully about the fragility of democracy. As many Members soon went on to do, he pointed to the importance of education. We do not repeat when we know, and we know only when we are educated. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about his constituency and the story of rescuing those fleeing persecution in Norway. That historical fact was new to me, and the House will be grateful for it.

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke, in his characteristically frank but moving way, about his experience in Yugoslavia, and I wish to make two points to him. First, he is right to remind the House, and we are right to remind ourselves, that those events took place not in a faraway land of which we knew nothing, but on our doorstep, and just in 1993. Secondly, for what it is worth, I wish to say personally to him, because he spoke of his shame and the shame of his mother, that he has nothing to be ashamed about. He and his men did their best, and that is all we as a democracy can ever ask.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) is currently in Westminster Hall for a debate about religious freedom, so there is a link even today. She is not in her place for that reason, but she gave us a powerful speech on Rwanda, reminding us of the horror of rape and sexual violence, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Brigg and Goole and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) did in relation to the horrific events of 7 October. I sat and listened as a husband and a father of three daughters, and who would not be moved to think that those horrible events took place just a few short weeks ago.

A common theme has been smell, a sense that is often not spoken about enough. We talk about our memories of what we have seen or heard, but smell can be hugely evocative, be it of a time or place in our childhood, a holiday or whatever. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is a doctor and he will have been used to the smell of medical things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole also spoke about the recent smell of death and rotting flesh. The father of a great friend of mine had been part of the medical team that went into Belsen, and until his death he always spoke about the smell that was still on his skin. We should remember that always.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke of the complacency of the view that, “It’s all history.” It is not history; it is happening now. When we think it is history—that either it is not happening or it cannot happen again—we have lost the battle, have we not? What was the holocaust and why should we remember it? We can remember it for the horror, the statistics, the figures and the scale, but the eternal shame, to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, is that it was man’s inhumanity to man. We should all be ashamed and embarrassed by it, because it shows, at the darkest and basest moments of humankind, precisely what we can do to each other, in the name of doctrine, theology, ideology. It is a terrible thing that we have somewhere deep within our DNA. Let us resolve to keep it buried.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) spoke powerfully about hatred and prejudice, and he, too, spoke of the importance of education. I want especially to mark the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I hope he will not take it the wrong way when I say that I thought that the frank assessment of current events that he gave us was, for a Birmingham Member, a brave speech. I was pleased to hear it, the House will be grateful to have heard it, and he should be commended for delivering it in the heartfelt and sincere way that he did.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), in that simple memory of a shoe and a piece of make-up, so reminiscent of the museum where the shoes of those who died were gathered up as a reminder, reminds us of the simplicity and therefore the futility; this was ordinary people going about their lives in an ordinary way, on an ordinary day, and suddenly, as a result of somebody’s bigotry and hatred, it was all taken away. The lipstick, powder, mascara, the pair of dancing shoes, whatever it might happen to be, will stand as a longer lasting memorial than any statue or plaque that could be erected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) again picked up on this theme of education, and I pay tribute to all of those—the Holocaust Educational Trust and others—who day in, day out ensure that we never forget. We are right to remind ourselves of the importance of that. People have spoken of the important role that our universities and schools play in ensuring free and fair speech, and ensuring that all voices can be heard, and that tolerance and toleration are the hallmarks of a civilised democracy. They need to step up to the plate and play their part, as does this place, in ensuring that those are preserved and protected.

The hon. Member for Blaydon, who spoke for the Opposition, gave a heartfelt speech, as did the SNP spokesman, and we commend her for that. How right my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East were to remind us of the uncomfortable truth, as the right hon. Member for Barking did, of our slightly uncomfortable position with regard to the welcoming of Jewish children through the Kindertransport but not their parents, and the controls that we placed on Jewish migration and the problems that caused for too many people. I could go on, because this has been a moving debate on a mammoth issue. It has been about history—80 years ago and more recent—but the issue is so fresh and contemporary today that it chills us to the bone.

Before I conclude, I should apologise to the Hansard scribes. My officials will have given them a typed speech but, as usual, I have ignored it, because the speeches I heard from colleagues this afternoon were from the heart, and I wanted to respond, on behalf of the Government, in kind.

However, wherever, whoever and whenever, how they died, where they died, and who they were, let us unite today and always to mark and reflect on all of those who have lost their lives, to both the holocaust and all holocausts. May all of their sacrifices not have been in vain. May all of their memories be a blessing.

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Ministerial Corrections

[Simon Hoare]

I do not agree with that, and nor will I take any lessons on political opportunism from the SNP. I am tempted to say that I would WhatsApp my answer to the hon. Lady, but she would probably delete it before she read it. A lot will depend on whether the identification has the relevant hologram. I also point out to the hon. Lady that—[Interruption.] She chunters from a sedentary position without wanting to listen to the answer, but of the 14,000 who did not have the right identification, 7,000 came back.

[Official Report, 22 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare):

An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) during Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions. The response should have been:

[Simon Hoare]

I do not agree with that, and nor will I take any lessons on political opportunism from the SNP. I am tempted to say that I would WhatsApp my answer to the hon. Lady, but she would probably delete it before she read it. A lot will depend on whether the identification has the relevant hologram. I also point out to the hon. Lady that—[Interruption.] She chunters from a sedentary position without wanting to listen to the answer, but of the 37,000 who did not have the right identification, 14,000 did not come back.