Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I ask everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind those present that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first; for a debate on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press to a vote any non-lead amendment, new clause or new schedule in a group, they will need to let the Chair know. The order of decisions will follow the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Extension of right to vote etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament that reviews why the age at which it would become legal to vote in parliamentary general elections should differ from the following—
(a) the age of majority in the Family Law Act 1969;
(b) any minimum ages specified in law which the Secretary of State considers appropriate to review.”
This amendment would prevent Part 1 of the Act coming into force until the Secretary of State had undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in this Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.
Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.
Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.
Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that
“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.
Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.
Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.
Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.
At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?
Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.
Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.
There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.
Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.
Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:
“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”
It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:
“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”
Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I smile at the idea that it is convenient for us to pass the law; it is never convenient to pass a law.
The hon. Gentleman has set out a number of ages at which people can do different things. Most people would agree that adulthood is not the flick of switch but a continuum. We do things at different stages; many would argue that voting is at the lower end and is one of the earliest things that we should do. That was the position of the Conservative party when it came to choosing three of our recent Prime Ministers; 15-year-old Conservative party members had more say over who was the Prime Minister of this land than the rest of us. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Paul Holmes
The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes.
Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true.
Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.
Sam Rushworth
Every political party has equal opportunity to appeal to every voter. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that Labour party politics is more attractive to younger voters?
Paul Holmes
If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are.
Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process.
I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence submitted by the Electoral Reform Society says that research has shown that the younger people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives? What he has said about there being no evidence is not correct.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates.
The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16.
The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said:
“we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.”
He goes on:
“I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”.
The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?
Sam Rushworth
I am happy to share my personal view on that point with the hon. Member. As was mentioned a moment ago, growing up is not a moment that happens between one night and the next. It is a continuum, and different ages apply to different things; people have to wait until they are 21 to do some things. One vote is one grain of sand on the beach. It allows people to meaningfully participate in democracy. That is, of course, entirely different from actually being an elected representative themselves. To me, that is a fairly obvious point.
Paul Holmes
What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.
I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.
There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.
I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.
The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.
Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—
Paul Holmes
Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?
If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.
Paul Holmes
What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.
If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.
The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.
Sam Rushworth
I feel that, particularly in the previous intervention, the Opposition are still tying themselves up in knots around the idea that the transition from childhood to adulthood has to happen within a millisecond of someone turning a particular age, rather than under-standing that there is a process of becoming an adult and we allow people different rights and responsibilities that are appropriate for those stages.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I feel that there is a difference between voting and standing to be elected. It is the difference between someone being able to choose a person to represent them and having to listen to and represent others. They are two different jobs. The Conservatives know that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would tell me that he believes a 15-year-old should be Prime Minister, but they allowed 15-year-olds to elect who is our Prime Minister.
Paul Holmes
I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.
I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.
David Simmonds
I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?
Paul Holmes
That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.
I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?
Warinder Juss
It is misguided to compare the ability to vote with being a representative. There is a huge step between someone having the right to decide who should represent them and being that representative themselves. Many people well beyond the age of 18 would be able to vote for their representative, but would not necessarily be in a position to be a representative themselves.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.
The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.
Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.
When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.
That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that
“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.
We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,
“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,
and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.
We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve.
Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people.
Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18.
Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over.
The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.
David Simmonds
On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.
Dr Chowns
I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development.
The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament.
If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.
Warinder Juss
I want to reiterate what the hon. Member has said. In my experience, the younger the person the more politically engaged they appear to be. I spend so much time going into schools, and I find that younger people are more concerned about the environment than anyone else. I have more emails and letters from schoolchildren about climate change than I have from anyone else. So it is really important that we take that political engagement on board and give them a right to vote at 16.
Dr Chowns
I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we need a proportional voting system so that everybody’s votes are equally taken into account. That would enable us to make policy in a way that focuses more on the longer term and the investments we should make on a generational basis, rather than people, under the first-past-the-post system, being so focused on short-term decision making and on the next general election. Young people are concerned about what sort of world they will inherit—what the world will be like when they are 50—and they are going to have to live with the decisions we make for a very long time.
I want to speak briefly about trust in politics. Giving young people votes at 16 tells them that their voices, votes and views are valued, and this really does matter. The 2024 British social attitudes survey, conducted after the general election that year, recorded a new low level of trust, with only 12% of people saying they trust Governments to put the interests of the country above those of their own party. Votes at 16 would be a really valuable sign of trust in and respect for our young people, which is a healthy and important part of defending and bolstering our democracy. At a time when division and polarisation are unfortunately flourishing, it is vital to work with and support young people to make their voices heard, because they do want to bring the country together.
There is positive evidence for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. For example, younger voters in Germany have had a positive impact on family discussions of politics. In a number of countries, 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote. As has been mentioned, it is also the norm for many voters in the UK. Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds are already enfranchised to vote in devolved and local elections, and I would love those in England and Northern Ireland to have the same rights.
In conclusion, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would not drastically change the electoral landscape, but it would allow young people to have a voice in the decisions that are made for them every day at local, regional and national level. It is also a golden opportunity to improve democratic education, which I believe we will have a chance to discuss that in more depth later in our line-by-line scrutiny, as well as to register young people to vote and to embed that deep democratic respect for the right to vote. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward. Lowering the franchise is a really important opportunity to nurture more active citizens for the future. I will be absolutely delighted to vote for clause 1, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so we can positively engage the next generation in politics and improve the health of our democracy.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
We are coming at this debate in the wrong way. We need to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary age at which it is acceptable to vote. The last Labour Government obviously thought that people become adults at 18. I remember that some people in my school year could buy cigarettes, at 16, and the last Labour Government raised that to 18. I would have supported that at the time, but the last Labour Government’s principle was obviously that adulthood started at 18 rather than 16.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, said that someone can join the Army, RAF or Navy at 16. That is true, but they cannot be deployed on the frontline. A consequence of the Bill could therefore be that somebody can vote for a party or a Prime Minister of this country, which then, heaven forbid, has to send troops to the frontline, where they themselves cannot go, even though they are theoretically voting to send other people there. That is a difficult and challenging situation. We need to look at other age limits, whether for smoking, going to the frontline or driving. They all need to come at the age that someone becomes an adult.
Sam Rushworth
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that everything should happen at exactly the same age? For example, people have to be 21 to adopt or pilot a plane. Is he suggesting that we should lower those age limits? The age of consent for sex is 16. Is he suggesting that that be elevated to 18? The point he seems to be making is that everything must happen at once.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that, if we want to lower the voting age, we need to have a debate about when someone becomes an adult. We can absolutely have that debate, and if the Government decide that we want votes at 16, we need to consider a number of other age limits. I would not change any of them, and I would not reduce the voting age to 16, because I believe that people should be able to vote when they become an adult, at 18. If the Government intend to change that, we need to consider lots of other age limits. As I just pointed out, the last Labour Government obviously believed that people become adults at 18. That is why they raised the smoking age, and why they introduced legislation to ensure that people could not leave school and just do nothing, so that people now have to stay in education, training or employment until the age of 18. How can someone go out and vote for me to have certain rights when they do not have those rights themselves? That needs to be looked at.
As has already been asked, why has the Labour party’s national executive committee raised to 18 the age limit for voting in some party official elections and standing for some of those posts? That is nonsense. The Labour party is saying that people can vote for their MPs, but cannot vote in internal party elections, or stand for some of those positions, until they are 18. That is absolute nonsense.
I support amendment 33, in the name of the shadow Minister, because it would make the Government think again. As I said, we need to look at these age limits as a whole. We need to look at the age someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary figure.
The Minister said that she wanted consistency. If the Government are successful in lowering the voting age to 16, then of course, to make this consistent, people should be able to vote in recall petitions. But she should then go a step further, by allowing people to stand. If we trust young people, at the age of 16, to cast their ballots for someone to represent them, they should be able to stand as well. There have been a number of contributions on whether someone should be able to stand. What is the difference between listening to somebody who wants our vote and listening to someone whose vote we have, and whose constituency casework we need to deal with? That is the same skillset: listening, developing policy, thinking about what to do and thinking about legislation to bring forward. I will never know how one can argue that the age limit for one of those should be 18 and the other 16.
I do not support lowering the voting age, and I will oppose clause 1. If the Government intend to lower the voting age, I urge them to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country. This Bill will have unintended consequences. If the Government deem that 16 is when someone becomes an adult in this country, we need to have a wider discussion about what other legislation will need to be changed.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for such a constructive debate. I come back to the original point that I made: the important question is not what else someone can or cannot do, but whether 16 is the right age to vote. The Government are clear that the answer is yes, it is the right age to be able to exercise a democratic right. It will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to have a say in the Government that shapes their future and sets them up for a long engagement in democracy.
Turning to issues raised in the debate, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley pointed out that there is no single definition of age at which someone becomes an adult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland ably pointed out, the idea that 18 is a standard age of adulthood is a misconception. Different age limits are applied in different circumstances, which is quite right. “One size fits all” solutions almost always mean “one size fits none”.
On the issue of representation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West made this point very ably: the act of casting a vote is not the same as representing voters. It is perfectly reasonable for different requirements to apply. We will be following the line of Scotland and Wales where representation is allowed from the age of 18. On education, to speak to amendment 33, the Government are already working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to prepare people to exercise their democratic rights. That, combined with the Government’s national youth strategy and the improved curriculum and programmes of study in England following the curriculum and assessment review, will make sure that young people are not only given the means to make their voice heard, but are empowered and motivated to do so.
Last November, the Department for Education committed to make citizenship compulsory in primary schools in England and to revise programmes of study to make sure that pupils receive an essential grounding in a range of topics, including democracy, Government and law. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley, who joined his political party at the age of 15, has given a very pertinent demonstration of why young people are perfectly capable of exercising their rights, engaging politically, and participating in our democracy. We want to extend those rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, because too often young people are ignored by politicians. The policies of the parties that put representatives forward do not take account of the views of those young people. And it is the young people themselves who have the most at stake.
I am reminded of my own daughter, who at the age of 16 was unable to vote in the Brexit referendum, like many of her classmates in that school year. Ten years later, that is an absence that they feel very keenly. Their participation is healthy for our democracy and our political parties, and they should be able to vote.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 3 (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.), for subsection (1) substitute—
‘(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.’
(3) Omit subsection (1A).
(4) In subsection 1B for “1A” substitute ‘1’.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
Samantha Dixon
I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.
To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.
The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.
I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.
As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.
Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.
The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.
Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.
We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.
I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.
There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.
This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.
We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.
Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.
On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.
We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.
Dr Chowns
I rise to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and to oppose clause 2 stand part.
New clause 9 seeks to extend voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of four years or less. That is the sentence length at which a prisoner would traditionally have been eligible for release after serving half their sentence. Extending the franchise to more people in prison would widen civic participation, strengthen our democracy and aid rehabilitation.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I just want to clarify my understanding of the Green party’s policy position. I have been looking at the Sentencing Council guidelines, and typically a person convicted of racially or religiously aggravated assault serves two years in prison. Is it the Green party’s position that those people should be allowed to vote in a general election?
Dr Chowns
I have made my position about the new clause clear, but perhaps this is a good moment to discuss a point that I was going to come to later. Various points have been made about the importance of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a punishment for something that somebody has done wrong. There is a wide variety of things that people may have done wrong and for which they are rightly imprisoned, but should we not use the opportunity of a person’s imprisonment to support, encourage and reward prosocial behaviour?
Voting is prosocial behaviour that helps to integrate and rehabilitate the person and connect them back to the society from which they have become estranged through their crime. We encourage prisoners to use libraries to engage in educational opportunities and a whole range of other prosocial activities. In the same way, should we not encourage prisoners to engage in voting?
Andrew Lewin
I am grateful for the tenor of the debate. The hon. Lady talks about the connection to society, but I ask that she considers the victim for a minute. Let us stick with my example. Very sadly, we are seeing cases of religiously aggravated assault rising in this country, particularly relating to the Jewish and Muslim communities. Just this week, we saw the horrific example of the attack on ambulances. What does she think will happen if the victim learns that the perpetrator of the crime is allowed to vote? Does she think that is right?
Dr Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I am disappointed by his tone and what appears to be a politically motivated attempt to score points rather than to engage with the substance of the debate, which is about whether prisoners should be encouraged to vote.
Whether somebody is a victim of a racially aggravated assault, a rape or any other horrific crime, if the perpetrator receives a sentence that comes within the framework of the new clause—I very much hope that it would not be less than four years for a serious crime—we should encourage that perpetrator to participate in voting in the same way as we encourage prisoners to participate in other prosocial behaviours. That is done very widely in many other countries. Imprisonment is the punishment to the individual. The question is whether we should prevent those individuals from engaging in rehabilitative behaviours that reconnect them with society.
Warinder Juss
I am a member of the Justice Committee, and my biggest focus is rehabilitation and resettlement. I take the hon. Lady’s view that rehabilitation is extremely important, and that that is the way that we stop reoffending. But as someone who grew up suffering a lot of racist abuse—physical and verbal—I would be very affronted if somebody who had committed a racial crime against me was then allowed to vote, because going to prison is not only about rehabilitation but is a punishment. It is important that we do not lose sight of that fact. I am stating my personal position, bearing victims in mind. If somebody had committed a racial crime against me and they were given the same right to vote as anybody else I would feel very insulted.
Dr Chowns
I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.
By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.
Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.
Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped
“in a cycle of disadvantage”.
The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced
“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.
She also found that
“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”
I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.
It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.
There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.
There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.
I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.
Dr Chowns
As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.
As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.
Paul Holmes
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.
The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.
I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.
Samantha Dixon
The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.
The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.
The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.
David Simmonds
There is a high degree of cross-party agreement on this point, but I have a technical question. The Minister referred earlier to the status of secure accommodation for children. Such an order is made by the family court rather than the criminal court, but it is often handed down when a local authority youth justice team is concerned particularly about the risks of self-harm. Under existing legislation, any child who is in custody of any kind is de facto in the care of the local authority where they reside. Under the terms of the Bill, that local authority then has a duty to support those who may be in secure accommodation to access their vote.
Could the Minister briefly set out what discussions, if any, she has had with the Department for Education, which owns that children-in-care legislation, so that we have clarity about what arrangements would be in place so that a child who is in secure accommodation, of which there is a very limited amount, often some distance from someone’s home, is able to exercise their right to a vote, which they would retain under these provisions?
Samantha Dixon
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is quite technical. I will provide him with the details. He is right that some convicted 16 to 17-year-olds, rather than being imprisoned in a young offender institution, are detained in secure children’s homes or secure training centres. Whether an individual is held in a young offender institution, a secure children’s home, a secure school or a secure training centre following conviction is not a direct reflection of the nature of their offence or determined by characteristics such as age.
It is possible for one individual who is convicted of a particular offence to be held in a young offender institution while an otherwise identical individual, who has committed the same offence, is held in a secure children’s home. Accordingly, it is appropriate and consistent to ensure that all convicted prisoners, regardless of their age or the institution in which they are held, should be prevented from voting. I will provide further details in writing, if that is acceptable to the hon. Member.
I thank hon. Members for their support for clause 2 and for the principle, which we are extending to 16 and 17-year-olds, that those held in secure accommodation and prison cannot vote—I think that is a well-understood principle, and it is one that we continue to support—and for their comments regarding new clause 9, which the Government will not be supporting.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.
The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.
I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.
Paul Holmes
It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.
I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?
The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his support. For attainment at the age of 18, we work with 16 and 17-year-olds, so the two-year rule will continue by convention. If I have anything to say that differs from that, I will share that with him.
David Simmonds
This is, again, a bit of a technical question, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and I served previously as lead members for children’s services, and one of the groups for whom this will be particularly relevant is those young people who may be in the care system because they are asylum seekers. My local authority has among the highest populations of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the country.
There are existing arrangements, but at the moment, because the voting age is 18, it is completely clear: someone is an adult in the system and their eligibility to attain their vote depends upon the determination of their claim. However, there is a significant population of young people who have age assessments that are being disputed, or for whom there are issues around where residence may take place and whether leave to remain will be granted, and therefore at what point the individual, not because of their age but because of their immigration or asylum status, will attain the right to vote. What discussions have there been with the Home Office, which owns that legislation, and potentially the Foreign Office, which may have sight of what arrangements are in place in the countries from which those young people may be moving to the United Kingdom, to ensure a degree of consistency and certainty?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his question on quite a complex issue. The right to vote is based on citizenship, so I would have to come back to him with further detail on those circumstances. We will come on to clauses that relate to children in the care of local authorities and their rights to register to vote, and to vote, but on that specific issue I think I will need to come back to him.
David Simmonds
I am sure that everyone is aware that the arrangements with Ireland, for example, provide a degree of eligibility and commonality, not just in the electoral system but in all sorts of other areas. In terms of enfranchisement, we have eligible Commonwealth voters who may participate in our electoral system by virtue of their Commonwealth status. That does not apply to all countries in the Commonwealth, but it does apply to a significant number of them. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue too, particularly given that we can envisage, for example, service families from the military of an allied country—in my constituency, with HMS Warrior just over the border, we have a significant number of families who come from Canada and Australia and, indeed, Europe—who may be here for a period of time, which would mean that they fall within the scope of this legislation. It would be helpful to understand what arrangements are in place to ensure that they are treated fairly.
Samantha Dixon
I will supply the hon. Member with that information, because it also applies to attainers who are living overseas. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Declarations of local connection: looked after children and detained persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 4 will ensure that the extension of the franchise works effectively for young people whose living arrangements do not fit the traditional model of a fixed or permanent address. Declarations of local connection already allow certain individuals to register to vote when they cannot reasonably be associated with a single permanent address. However, once the franchise is extended, it is important that young people are not excluded from participation simply because of the nature of their accommodation. The clause expands the circumstances in which a declaration of local connection may be made.
Members should be assured that the provision does not remove any existing eligibility requirements. It enables young people who are looked after by a local authority, who have previously been looked after, or who are kept in secure accommodation to register in a way that reflects a meaningful connection to an area. It is an important measure that ensures that young people in these circumstances are able to register in a way that reflects their living arrangements.
Clause 5 will ensure that the extension of the franchise properly supports service families. Service declarations exist to ensure that members of the armed forces, Crown servants and British Council employees are not disadvantaged in their ability to register to vote when serving overseas. However, once the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, a gap would arise: the children of service voters who move with their families in service would not have access to the same registration mechanism.
The clause addresses that gap and enables children who reside with a service-voter parent or guardian to register using a service declaration. That registration will cease when the individual reaches the relevant age, which is 19 for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections and local elections in England and Northern Ireland, and 18 for Scottish parliamentary elections, Senedd Cymru elections and local elections in Scotland and Wales.
David Simmonds
To some extent, I have another version of my earlier question. In respect of children in care, within the provision there will need to be a process for registration and, in due course, a process for the administration of casting the ballot. If we consider the original judgment on prisoner voting, the European convention on human rights does not trump parliamentary sovereignty.
The judgment went against the UK because, at that stage, there were no arrangements in place for prisoners to be able to vote, although the law did not specifically prohibit them from doing so. The court said, “You can’t effectively lock them up so that they can’t get to the ballot box, but at the same time say that they are still legally entitled to the vote; you have to make a choice.” Parliament made a choice and said, “We are going to ban those people from voting.”
The Government have been very clear that young people in secure accommodation will be eligible to vote. We are also aware that those in the 16 to 18-year-old category who are treated as care leavers will often be in what is known as move-on accommodation as they transition from a fostering placement or children’s home to semi-independent living.
What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that, in practice, under the terms of this legislation, those young people are not deprived of their ability to vote by virtue of moving around the country or simply lacking access to the service that they require, as opposed to being deprived of it by a deliberate decision of Parliament as part of the punishment inherent in a custodial sentence?
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member makes an important point. The response to that is the declaration of the local connection; that must relate to an address with which the individual has a genuine connection, as set out in the Bill. For example, a person experiencing homelessness may register using the address of, or nearest to, a place where they spend a substantial amount of their time, such as a shelter or another place where they regularly stay. Similarly, a young person looked after by a local authority may register using a previous address or one connected to the local authority responsible for their care. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s point.
David Simmonds
I understand the Minister’s point in the sense that a young person can register to vote. My question is about the logistics of how the ballot is cast. One of the challenges for young people, particularly in the care leaving transition, can be the instability of placements.
Young people may move around to access the type of accommodation that they need, or they may be placed far from home to get them away from, for example, a drugs gang or a grooming gang that caused them to come into the care system in the first place. Therefore, they will find themselves in a position where, while they may wish to participate under this legislation, the logistics and practicalities of that may be different and, in practice, they may be deprived of the opportunity to vote. It may be a matter for those discussions between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, but it would be helpful to understand what practical arrangements have been put in place to ensure that, if the Government really want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote, they can do so.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member raises an important point. We have to establish the principle in the first instance and, as we progress with the legislation, we can provide more detail about the practical arrangements. Clauses 4 and 5 establish the principle; we will have to come back to the detail of how we take that forward. It is a complex area, but it is essential that young people in the care of a local authority are not disenfranchised because of that.
Clause 5 is important to ensure that young people in the care of their families overseas, as they give service to our country, are treated fairly under the extended franchise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Further provision about registration and participation in elections
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 6, page 10, line 9, at end insert “and recall petitions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 6 and 7.
Schedule 1.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 6 and schedule 1 consist of common-sense amendments to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. While extending the vote to young people, the provisions align regulations about the age at which young people can act as a proxy, accompany voters to polling stations, act as a companion to a voter with a disability, and apply for a voter authority certificate.
Members may recall that clause 3 enables registration from the age of 14. Schedule 1 removes the requirement for electoral registration officers to conduct house-to-house inquiries and the ability to make telephone calls to under-16s. Further measures to safeguard young people are addressed in clauses 7 to 13. Electoral registration officers in Scotland and Wales will no longer be required to record when electors on their local register attain the age of 18, as there will no longer be a change in entitlement to vote at that age.
In addition, part 2 of schedule 1 sets up a transitional process for moving certain electors in Scotland and Wales from the local government register to the UK parliamentary register. As it stands, when the change to the voting age comes into effect, people under the age of 18 who are already registered to vote in Wales and Scotland might need to make an additional application to be added to the UK parliamentary electoral register. Electoral registration officers—EROs—however, already hold the information necessary to determine their eligibility to be registered as UK parliamentary electors. Part 2 of schedule 1 will enable EROs to add them directly across.
Members should be assured that EROs will be required to assess each individual’s eligibility, noting the differences between devolved and parliamentary elections, such as nationality requirements. By registering for devolved elections, those young people have taken steps to engage in our democratic processes, and that engagement should not be discouraged by requiring them to make another, identical application. The overall process will ensure simplicity for electors and a smooth transition, while reducing the administrative burden on EROs. It is a common-sense, transitional measure, done only at the point that our reserved votes at 16 measures take effect.
Government amendments 5 and 7 consist of consequential changes to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. They are technical amendments, which will ensure that 16 and 17-year-old voters are included in calculating the threshold for recall petitions. They will have the right to vote in the election that a recall petition may trigger, so it is only right that they are included in such calculations.
In addition to those changes, Government amendment 6 removes the restriction that certain EU citizens on the local government register need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales. The current provision exists because of the differences between the police and crime commissioner franchise and the local government franchise in Wales, and with the equalising of the voting age for these election types, the wording that is removed by this amendment is no longer needed. That brings the rights of those under the age of 18 who are registered to vote in line with other electors aged over 18, as intended with the extension of the franchise. I hope Members will accept these technical amendments, and agree that they should be made to the Bill.
Paul Holmes
It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.
The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.
Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.
The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?
Samantha Dixon
The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.
David Simmonds
I have another technical question to provide clarification for the Committee. We know that there are different rules for who is eligible to vote in local elections and in general elections—and council elections are imminent—and the Government website sets out those criteria. One of the consequences of this change will clearly be to extend the franchise to a large group of people who do not and cannot currently vote in UK general elections.
A question that may arise for an electoral registration officer is how to establish the age of, for example, an eligible Commonwealth citizen who arrives to register to vote, if their age is not clear. Will the Minister set out what guidance EROs might be expecting to spell out the evidence that might be sought to establish eligibility in terms of age if, for example, a citizen of Poland who has moved to the United Kingdom wishes at the age of 16 to join the electoral register for the upcoming council elections?
Samantha Dixon
Let me re-emphasise that EROs are familiar with providing such guidance already. We are simply extending the franchise to a different age group to enable them to participate in UK parliamentary elections and those other elections mentioned. The well-established route for providing that guidance will continue, extended to encompass the newly enfranchised in future elections. This is a well-trodden path, and I am happy to provide more details as required.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Further provision about registration of young voters etc
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011
14A In section 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales), in subsection (6C)(a)(ii) omit “, who has attained the age of 18”.”.
This amendment removes the restriction that certain EU citizens, who are registered in a register of local government electors, need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Recall of MPs Act 2015
14B (1) The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (determination of whether recall petition successful), in subsection (3), for “18” substitute “16”.
(3) In section 22 (interpretation), in subsection (3)(b)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “18” substitute “16”;
(b) in that sub-paragraph, for “18” substitute “16”.”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment includes 16 and 17 year olds who are registered in a register of parliamentary electors in the calculation of the threshold to be reached to determine whether a recall petition is successful.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7
Prohibition of registration officers disclosing information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 7 provides for the protection of information of individuals who register to vote in advance of reaching voting age. As noted in discussion on clause 3, the Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so that they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement carries significant benefits, but must be accompanied with due provisions for protecting the data of these particularly young people.
The clause provides that protection by explicitly preventing electoral registration officers from publishing, supplying or otherwise disclosing the registration information of anyone under the age of 16. Registration information is defined in the clause as entries on the electoral register, including both domestic and overseas electors, and also records of absent voting arrangements.
These protections will ensure that people who wish to register to vote in advance of attaining voting age can do so safe in the knowledge that the data they provide to electoral registration officers when they register will be duly protected.
I should note that there are specific, limited circumstances in which sharing the data will be possible. These are provided for in the subsequent clauses, and I will turn to those momentarily. However, clause 7 sets out the key principle that the data of young people aged 14 and 15 warrant special protection.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. In other words, it sets out limited scenarios in which EROs may share the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds. These provisions are very limited in number. As I list them, I trust hon. Members will agree that each of them is proportionate and justified.
Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering clauses 8 to 14 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I have covered clause 7, so if Members will indulge me, I will turn to clause 8.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. The first circumstance in which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared is if that disclosure is necessary for registration or the conduct of an election, referendum, recall petition or other poll. That simply allows electoral administrators to carry out their work.
An example in action would be an electoral registration officer using the data of a 14 or 15-year-old to conduct the annual canvass. The canvass would help ensure that the young person in question is still accurately registered at the address electoral administrators have on file. Another illustration of the purpose of this provision would relate to the preparation of a poll. For example, clerks at polling stations must have an extract of the electoral register for electors who will vote at that polling station. There may be circumstances in which that extract is prepared in advance of polling day, and this provision allows it to include individuals who will turn 16 on polling day, but who at the moment of the preparation of the extract are still 15.
The second circumstance provides that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared in accordance with one of a limited number of supply enactments—specifically, those listed in clause 11. A supply enactment is a provision to allow either the entire register or the relevant part of the register to be supplied to a certain individual or organisation. The specific supply enactments where the disclosure of the registration information of under-16s is permitted are listed in clause 11, and as such I will discuss them in detail during the debate on clause 11.
However, this clause applies two crucial limits on disclosure of the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds as part of a relevant supply enactment, as I will now explain. First, disclosure under a relevant supply enactment may be made only for purposes relating to an election at which a given person will be entitled to vote. That will allow the information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities relating to that poll. For example, it will allow 15-year-olds who will be 16 in time for a given poll to be sent campaigning materials relating to that poll.
Secondly, there is a limit on disclosure under relevant supply enactments that requires that such disclosures must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned. That provides an extra safeguard against the disclosure of any information about young people that is not absolutely necessary for the legitimate activities in question. For example, candidates have no need to know the exact age of a young person beyond the fact that they will be 16 on the date of a poll, so they will not receive such information.
The third circumstance in which the registration information of under-16s may be disclosed under clause 8 is where such information is necessary for the purpose of a criminal investigation relating to an electoral offence. The provisions in the Bill prevent under-16s from being fined for failing to register to vote, but there are other electoral offences that rightly apply regardless of age group. Those include offences such as a fraudulent application to register to vote, or the offence of personation, where someone attempts to steal another’s vote. Such serious offences should be investigated no matter who commits them, and this clause allows for those criminal investigations to take place unimpeded.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister outlined the criminal charge of personation. Does she think that watering down photographic ID and using bank cards for identification will make it easier or harder for someone to be convicted of electoral personation?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I will return to that point when we debate the relevant clauses.
Samantha Dixon
The fourth circumstance allows the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds to be disclosed to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. That is the extension of a standard provision allowing our intelligence agencies to use electoral registration data, if necessary.
The final circumstance allows the registration information of an under-16 to be shared with an individual who has been appointed to act as that young person’s proxy voter. I am sure it is obvious that such information sharing is naturally helpful to allow the proxy voter to carry out their role.
It is important to note that three of the five circumstances in which clause 8 permits disclosure of information have further restrictions placed on them by clause 12, which I will discuss in detail shortly. Furthermore, the relevant supply enactments—the fourth circumstance—already contain restrictions on use and further disclosure. Overall, the Government consider these exceptions to the prohibition to be appropriate and proportionate in allowing young people’s registration information to be shared when, and only when, absolutely necessary.
Clause 9 provides for the way in which the data of 14 and 15-year-olds should be handled in Scotland and Wales, where the UK Government have responsibility for UK parliamentary elections, but the Scottish and Welsh Governments have devolved responsibility for local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Where individuals in Scotland and Wales are eligible to take part in both reserved and devolved polls, their electoral records are held by electoral registration officers on a combined register.
That is a very sensible and efficient approach to managing electoral registers, but in the context of the data protection provisions put in place by clauses 8 to 16, that approach presents a challenge—namely, what should happen if devolved legislation prohibits an entry from being disclosed, but reserved legislation allows it? The Government are committed to upholding and respecting our devolution settlements, and the clause is designed to do exactly that. Devolved electoral registers and reserved electoral registers should be considered to be separate in principle. It is only a matter of practice that they happen to be held in one place.
Clause 9 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if clause 7 of the Bill prohibits the disclosure of information, but devolved legislation allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only devolved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply. The clause strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the information of those who have not yet reached voting age, and respecting the rightful responsibility that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have over their devolved elections.
I turn now to clause 10, which is a mirror image of clause 9. Whereas clause 9 ensures that the Bill works with and does not conflict with devolved legislation, clause 10 is designed to ensure that devolved legislation does not conflict with this legislation. Specifically, clause 10 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if relevant parts of devolved legislation prohibit disclosure of information, but clause 7 of the Bill allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that, if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only reserved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply.
Taken together, clauses 9 and 10 accommodate and respect the importance of devolved responsibility, while equally ensuring that the UK Government are not constrained by the policy decisions made by the devolved Governments when legislating for our own elections.
I turn now to clause 11, which is a further part of the package of measures in the Bill designed to protect the information of 14 and 15-year-olds who register to vote ahead of reaching voting age. Specifically, clause 11 builds on clause 8, which sets out five circumstances in which the prohibition put in place by clause 7 on sharing the registration information of those under the age of 16 does not apply. Members will recall that the second circumstance listed in clause 8 provided that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared to comply with one of a limited number of supply enactments. Clause 11 lists four supply enactments, which I will list shortly.
Before I do, it is important to note that there are already restrictions on what individuals who receive information via a supply enactment may do with that information. I also remind hon. Members of the two strict limitations that clause 8 puts on disclosure under these supply enactments. First, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in clause 11 may be made only for purposes relating to an election, referendum or recall petition at which a given person will be entitled to vote or sign. That will allow information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities related to that poll. Secondly, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in the clause must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned.
Noting those key restrictions, I will now talk through the four types of supply enactment under which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared. The first allows records of postal and proxy voters under 16 to be shared on request with a candidate. The second allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Electoral Commission. The third allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Boundary Commission.
The fourth allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with candidates upon request or, in respect of the recall of an MP, that MP, political parties and official campaigners. Noting again the important restrictions placed on disclosure in these circumstances by clause 8, these provisions make it possible for individuals who are not yet of voting age, but who will be on the actual day of a specific poll, to be appropriately involved in the electoral process in the run-up to that election.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that when we collect all this data, and the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission get it, they will be able to analyse it to make sure that all constituencies at the next general election fall within their parameters for how many electors each MP needs to represent, to make sure that none is too far outside that boundary?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny.
As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate.
Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy.
Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified.
Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect.
The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties.
Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists.
Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away.
Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes.
Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the Minister for giving us an extensive and very in-depth description of what those technical clauses—7 to 14—outline. I cannot claim to do those clauses credit in the way the Minister has. I will just briefly ask a number of questions on those technical clauses and then resume my seat—which I am sure many Members will be pleased to hear.
The Minister has outlined these various technical clauses, and the Opposition are not concerned that they might be controversial. As I said earlier, the issue of principle rather than pragmatism in re-engineering a system to where we basically currently are to cover the people that are being enfranchised is not controversial. However, there is a slight complication that could come out of some of these changes relating to overseas voters. We know that they are not really catered for in the Bill.
We heard a lot of evidence in the Bill Committee that a number of overseas voters are essentially disenfranchised. Looking at younger overseas voters and the precepts of these clauses applying to 14 and 15-year-olds, in some countries there may be a social media ban, for example. Similarly, in some countries it would not be easy for a candidate to access the information of people who will be eligible to vote at 16, but who are not covered by these clauses for the preparation at 14 and 15. Opposition Members would argue that this could have unintended consequences for a candidate’s ability to secure that data and approach those people as if they were living within the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and whether it would be, not dangerous, but an added disincentive for an overseas voter to engage and vote within the British or UK political process.
On clause 13, as with various other Bills that the Government have put forward, I am concerned by the House’s affirmative procedure giving the Minister or the Secretary of State a huge amount of power to unilaterally bring in changes. I do not think that it makes for good democracy or scrutiny of legislation. We discussed this countless times during the Committee of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where the Secretary of State will be given the power to make a decision through the affirmative procedure via secondary legislation, and individual Members of this House across all parties—but especially minor parties—cannot scrutinise that legislation in the way in which they should be able to. We all know how statutory instruments work in this place. Those Committees are probably among the briefer meetings that Members in this House have.
The Minister needs to reflect on the fact that the scrutiny and delivery of many of this Government’s pieces of legislation has not always achieved the right balance or tipped the scales in the right way. Members should have the opportunity to scrutinise properly and make changes to secondary legislation that the Secretary of State is empowered to bring. I ask her to look at that again and consider whether there is a better way. I understand the need to consult the Electoral Commission, but it is this place that makes the legislation and it is this place that should approve that legislation in a proper and thorough manner. I do not think that making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is the right way to go.
However, we will not oppose any of the clauses, which, as Members can tell by my varied and wide-ranging speech, are very technical. I hope that the Minister will address my questions.
Samantha Dixon
I note the concerns of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. We are not proposing changes to the voting rights of overseas electors, but I note the complexity around the handling of the attainers situation. None the less, electoral registration officers currently handle overseas voter attainers quite effectively, so we can be confident that, using the guidance from the Electoral Commission, they will continue to be able to do so.
On the powers that clause 13 may introduce in the future, if we look at the legislation that has been introduced over time—including during those dark periods of history before we were all elected—we can tell that our democratic system changes. This clause will address changes that we have not yet envisaged; if we had, believe me, they would be on the face of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Duty to raise awareness and provide assistance: Great Britain
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 44—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
Samantha Dixon
Before I begin, I want to respond to an important point that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner raised earlier today in the debate on clause 2. It was in relation to ensuring that young people in secure children’s homes are supported to access their rights to vote. I committed to answering that point, and am happy to do so now. It is important to note that such individuals will be able to apply to vote by post. Of course, individuals in such circumstances may find it confusing or complex to use the electoral process for the first time. These next two clauses, which were designed in close collaboration with the Department for Education, will provide support for individuals who are in precisely the circumstances set out by the hon. Member.
Clause 15 will ensure that a crucial layer of support is provided by local authorities to young people who may particularly benefit from assistance when registering to vote. This clause creates a twofold duty for local authorities in Great Britain with regard to certain young people. They must both raise awareness of the arrangements for registration as a UK parliamentary elector and provide assistance to register as a parliamentary elector. The young people who will benefit from this duty are those who are looked after by the local authority, or those who are eligible for continuing care from a local authority. The latter group are sometimes referred to as care leavers.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation in response to my earlier questions. Clause 15 says that a local authority
“must take the steps the authority considers necessary”.
One of the challenges with that is that young people will be placed in different areas of the country. The Bill gives rise to the possibility of significant inconsistency. One local authority may take the view that there need to be special arrangements for the young person to be taken to the polling station to cast their vote, or that particular arrangements are necessary for a postal vote to be exercised by someone whose station is further afield. Another authority may take the view that simply giving them a briefing note explaining it would be sufficient. Both of those sound like they would meet the test set out within the Bill.
Can the Minister set out what guidance there may be, either from her Department or from the Department for Education, to ensure that there is a degree of consistency, so that there is equality of access for young people in the care system? That is especially important where the placement they may be in is effectively controlled by a third party. For example, how will there be appropriate measures in place to ensure that a young person in foster care—particularly given the “Staying Put” policy introduced with cross-party support by the last Government, which enables those young people to stay as care leavers with a family with whom they have been fostered—has an equality and consistency of access to both the registration process and the physical ability to cast their vote?
Samantha Dixon
The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.
Paul Holmes
As we have heard, the clause establishes a duty for local authorities in Great Britain to raise awareness and provide assistance to certain young people— particularly those who are looked after by the local authority, and those who are eligible for continuing care—in registering to vote. While the intention to support young voters is commendable, we believe that the clause has several limitations. Not only is its scope narrowly defined, but it is also vaguely defined by the words “raise awareness” and “provide assistance”. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, I want to expand on that ever so slightly.
As the clause is narrowly defined, it excludes other groups that may face barriers to registration, such as the homeless youth, young carers or those in unstable housing. The clause places significant responsibility on local authorities to determine and implement the steps necessary to fulfil the duty. While this should not be a requirement in legislation, there has also not been any signal or indication from Ministers of any Department that additional funding, staffing or guidance has been considered, which risks creating an inconsistent application process across different areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned earlier, we have both been lead members for children and young people’s services. It is not insulting to hard-working local authorities, lead members and officers across the country to say that there can be varying interpretations of the legal duties placed on them—whether they relate to vulnerable people in care or local authority children’s homes. Can the Minister provide reassurance that she will ensure that local authorities across the country will follow a universal interpretation? Due to the narrow scope of the people that the clause identifies, as well as the quite vague language of “provide assistance” and “raise awareness”, it risks creating a patchwork quilt across the UK and a variation in interpretation, which needs to be tightened up.
The Opposition are not opposed to the clause; it is admirable and does what is necessary. However, it needs to be tighter so that people responsible for implementing this legislation can do so in the best way possible, notwithstanding the fact that council and local authority officers dealing with young people do so every day throughout the country.
The limited resources may struggle to reach all eligible young people, particularly those who move between authority areas, or who are placed outside their home authority for extended periods. Additionally, the clause does not include measurable targets or deadlines, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising and assistance efforts. Finally, the type of support provided is narrowly focused on registration itself, and does not address broader barriers, such as literacy, digital access or understanding of the electoral process. The geographical limitation of the clause to Great Britain also creates inconsistencies across the UK.
Overall, while clause 15 represents a positive step towards increasing voter registration—I hope the Minister will speak later about raising awareness and enabling younger people through the education system—it focuses only on registration of vulnerable young people. Its narrow scope, reliance on local authority capacity and clear lack of performance measures may limit its practical impact. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that those issues have been looked at, and I hope she can alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it
“requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education”.
Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.
As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.
New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.
The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.
Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.
I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.
We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, would require the Government to publish a report regarding steps to support the implementation of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, discussed on Second Reading. The report would cover proposals to increase awareness of the franchise change among 14 to 17-year-olds and changes to civic education for that age group, to support the franchise change. That report would be required to be published within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act.
As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, extending the franchise is not simply “job done”. The Government are clear that young people must be supported and prepared to exercise their democratic rights. The new clause was clearly designed to ensure that the Government are as good as their word on this point, and it is excellent to see that hon. Members share our view on the importance of effective democratic engagement and education in delivering votes at 16. However, while the intention of the new clause is laudable, the Government do not believe that this is the right way to approach it.
On the part of the new clause concerning voter awareness, the Government will be playing an active role in this space, but will not be the only organisation to do so. The Electoral Commission, local and devolved governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations will all be part of a team effort to spread awareness. A report from the Government on their proposals would be a partial picture at best. It would also not be right for the Government to speak on behalf of other organisations’ plans, particularly those from the Electoral Commission, whose independence from the Government is crucial.
Regarding the education-related limb of the new clause, last November the Department for Education committed to making citizenship compulsory in primary schools and to publish revised programmes of study to ensure all pupils receive a grounding in topics including democracy, government and law. It is for the Department for Education to lead this work; I have worked alongside colleagues in the Department, and I know they will be diligent in providing updates on the progress of its work.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood, but is the Minister arguing that she does not support new clause 44 because a range of organisations will be taking part in action to raise awareness of the extended franchise and, therefore, it would not be right for the Government to provide a report only on what they were doing? That is not my reading of new clause 44, which asks the Government to do a report on proposals overall to support raising awareness and civic education. By definition, the Government are probably best placed to have that overview of all proposals, including their own, and those of the Electoral Commission and any number of other organisations, so that we can understand what is being done to support young people as they take on this new democratic responsibility.
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s view is that such a report would be partial; it would only cover the work that the Government are doing and we could not speak to other organisations and their work in this arena.
Dr Chowns
My reading of the clause is that it does not have to be partial: it calls for a report on all proposals. Therefore, perhaps the Government’s interpretation of the new clause is unnecessarily narrow. Might the Minister commit to going away and reflecting on whether this could actually be compatible and a helpful contribution to supporting the civic education of young people?
Samantha Dixon
This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.
Paul Holmes
I am pretty agnostic about new clause 44 because I think it is quite vague, but I understand the reason it has been tabled. Earlier I outlined a concern that I do not believe the education system is quite yet able to make sure that our younger people get the education that they should have before they vote in a national election, notwithstanding the fact that the education system needs to be impartial.
The Minister will know that some types of schools, such as academies, are not necessarily subject to the national curriculum. The legislation in these clauses is quite vague, as I mentioned. I am not sure that there is concrete action from the Minister’s Department and from the Department for Education on a cross-ministerial committee or something, to make sure that the two sides are being matched up to implement this legislation.
Will the Minister try to allay some of my concerns, and those of other hon. Members—perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause—about whether the education system will be well equipped, and whether all schools are going to be required to prepare young people for the new duty that they are going to be given?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I can offer hon. Members that reassurance. I have worked with DFE colleagues to consider the independent curriculum and assessment review. That review will take onboard democracy, government and law being part of the curriculum going forward. As I mentioned, citizenship will also be introduced in primary schools. As we go forward, the wide collaboration of not just this Government but devolved Governments, local authorities and others will support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical civic education. I mentioned that this is not a singular act but an ongoing task. A report of a proposed activity offered a year after the Bill becomes law will be little more than a snapshot of a much longer-term programme of work. For that reason, the Government do not support the new clause.
Lisa Smart
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples.
The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.
Samantha Dixon
I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.
Samantha Dixon
I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.
Samantha Dixon
I was going to come to the points the hon. Gentleman had raised.
Paul Holmes
I want to add another one, if that is possible. The Minister is being most generous, and she has shown utter determination not to accept new clause 44. Does she think there is merit in reviewing how this new enfranchisement will work, perhaps through existing mechanisms when there is a review of how a general election has been conducted? I know that is not every year, but when organisations look at voting and participation rates and attitude surveys at or after a general election, is there an opportunity to legislate for a review, at the end of each Parliament or the start of a new one, into the attitudes and voting habits of those new electors, as part of a wider review of behaviour in the last general election?
Samantha Dixon
With respect to hon. Members who are clearly thinking on their feet as we debate this issue, I point out that a review of every general election is done by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. As it has been involved in this Bill and the legislation that falls from it, I am sure that it will be particularly interested in this approach to the extension of enfranchisement.
Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley’s point regarding children in care and care leavers. I am pleased to join Opposition Members in declaring I was as a former council leader with corporate responsibility for young people in local authority care. I am acutely aware of their needs and the additional support they require. I have worked with council officers who routinely assist young people, particularly care leavers, in registering to vote and supporting them in the appropriate way as they do vote. I feel that electoral registration officers, with their unique roles within local authorities, will amply be able to support looked-after children and care leavers to exercise their right to vote. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Registration without an application
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(f) if the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching.”
This amendment requires the registration officer to register certain electors only when their existence has been verified through three different datasets.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 18 and 19 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections 17, 18 and 19 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published an independent review into the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters incorrectly being automatically added to the electoral roll.”
This amendment would prevent the provisions on automatic voter registration coming into force until the Secretary of State had published an independent review of the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters being incorrectly automatically added to the electoral roll.
Paul Holmes
I put on record my thanks to the officials in the Box for making that last set of amendments discussable, because they were so technical. We had an interesting debate, none the less.
We come to the crucial clauses that relate to automatic voter registration. I will speak on behalf of the official Opposition to amendments 26 and 27, which stand in my name. Automatic registration, which has been a clear aim of this Government from the beginning, would contradict the whole approach behind individual electoral registration—that individuals are responsible for registering and that there should be proper checks to ensure that the right people are eligible to be on the electoral roll. Automatic registration will result in more inaccurate entries and opens the door to electoral fraud, undoing the improvements delivered by individual registration.
Individual registration was implemented to stop fraudulent electoral registration, to ensure a more accurate register with fewer errors, and to remove the outdated concept that heads of household, often men, could decide who should be on the electoral roll. We argue that automatic registration would undermine those reforms. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially of people who have moved recently. Registration by algorithm may add people to electoral rolls who do not live in the area because of out-of-date entries on other databases; it might also add people who have a residence but are not eligible to vote, such as certain second home owners, unqualified Commonwealth voters and so on.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I support Opposition amendments 26 and 27 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, but I want to outline my concerns about automatic voter registration.
I think the way electors currently register themselves to vote is perfectly fine and works well across the United Kingdom, but if the Government are to push forward with automatic voter registration, they must make sure it happens all across the country at the same time for the same general election; otherwise there will be serious consequences. For example, I have two councils—Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire—that are in charge of their own electoral rolls for their own council area, but both cover my constituency. Let us say that Ministers decide to do auto-enrolment by council area, and that one of my council areas gets picked, but the other one does not. In a general election campaign, some of my electors would have been automatically enrolled and some not. That will matter. If the election is close, can that be challenged in the courts? Is it fair in a democracy? I do not think Ministers have thought through that automatic voter registration needs to happen everywhere at the same time.
The Government could say they will have pilot areas of automatic voter registration on the basis of council elections, and have automatic voter registration across a whole district for its council election, but not in the neighbouring district for its council election. That would be perfectly fair, because everybody within the same council boundary would be on the same electoral list and have the same rights to vote as everybody else. Unless this all happens at the same time for the next general election, there is a real danger of creating two groups of electors across the country.
As has been mentioned, this will affect the next boundary commission review, which is due to take place after the next general election. There will be some constituencies where auto-enrolment has happened and some where it has not, which will affect where the boundary commission draws the lines for the general election after next.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am not trying to trip the hon. Gentleman up; I am just genuinely curious to understand this. Is his contention that having mandatory automatic enrolment will increase the number of people who are registered? [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister shaking his head. If that is not the contention, and it is not the case that auto-enrolment would increase the number of people being registered, in what sense does the hon. Member for Broxbourne think that this would create two different populations?
Lewis Cocking
Some people will be automatically enrolled who have chosen, under the current system, not to be on the electoral roll, but it is a question of fairness. If we are not having that across the country, all at the same time, it will create an unfair election result. As I understand it, it will be up to Ministers to choose whether they do it by age, by location or by demographic. If everyone is not enrolled at the same time, one could arguably gerrymander, because one could pick people based on who they are likely to vote for at the general election.
I do not think we need automatic enrolment, but if the Government are going to push forward with it, they could at least say, “We are going to make the next generation fair in terms of auto-enrolment, and we are going to do it for everybody, all at the same time, across the country for the next general election.” If the Government are worried about capacity to do that, I suggest that what is needed is more time. The Electoral Commission might say that it needs more time to do it, so it would have to happen at the next general election after that. As I have said, they could do pilots based on council elections, as long as the whole authority is covered by that pilot.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that we heard about the pilots in Wales? Auto-enrolment was implemented, and when that data was verified, a significant number of voters fell off who should never have been on the roll in the first place. That indicates that there is a risk that auto-enrolment distorts the electoral position at local authority or parliamentary constituency level by adding people who are not eligible to vote. It creates two risks: one is, as my hon. Friend has described, boundaries being drawn in a way that does not allocate people’s votes equally; another is that people will be offered the chance the vote when they are not eligible to participate in that election.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.
Dr Chowns
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the Electoral Commission itself says:
“Automated voter registration has the potential to significantly improve levels of accuracy and completeness of the registers and help ensure people can vote in future elections… Significant progress should be made on implementing forms of automated registration before the next UK general election… Pilots in Wales last year show how effective automatic registration can be.”
I am a little worried that, inadvertently, a false impression of the opinion of the Electoral Commission has been given.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that if we are going to do automatic enrolment, it should be for everybody, all at the same time, across the country. As I have pointed out, one could do pilots within council areas, as long as everyone in the whole area is being enrolled at the same time. I have given a number of examples.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have two registration authorities, so it could be that at a general election some people within the same constituency are auto-enrolled while others are not. I do not believe that is fair. I said at the start of this that I think the current arrangements for registering to vote in this country are perfectly fine, and that people have a choice to register or not. If someone says, “I do not wish to register to vote,” that is their choice. That is up to the individual.
Dr Chowns
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will cite once more evidence from the Electoral Commission, which does not agree with him that the current system is fine. The Electoral Commission says that evidence from its research shows that
“as many as 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered to vote”.
That is a huge proportion—a huge disenfranchisement. The Electoral Commission says:
“Introducing more automated forms of registration would remove barriers to voting and make it easier for people to register and vote.”
Does the hon. Member not think we should listen to the Electoral Commission?
Lewis Cocking
Some of those 8 million people may have chosen not to be on the electoral roll. Would the hon. Lady like to stand in a constituency where half of her electors are auto-enrolled and the other half are not? What are the consequences of that if the election is very close? Will it be taken through the courts?
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27.
Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.
International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report:
“From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”.
We should listen to the experts on this matter.
The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.
We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear.
Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it.
Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration. The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.
Samantha Dixon
Voter registration is the bedrock of our democracy and is foundational to participation in elections; without it, we cannot exercise our right to vote. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Electoral Commission estimates that between 7 million and 8 million eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered to vote at all. We will address that registration gap by moving towards a more automated voter registration system.
Clause 17 will create a new process of registration without application, also known as direct registration. We believe that that will enrich our democracy by making voter registration as simple and easy as possible. It creates a new duty for electoral registration officers to add those who are unregistered directly on to the electoral register without those people having to go through the process of applying to register to vote, provided that certain conditions are met. That will be the case only if the ERO is satisfied that the person should be registered, on the basis of data obtained by the ERO. Those who are directly registered will be informed through a notice that it is happening. On the points made by the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hazel Grove, they will have the right to opt out of the process during the response period.
In conjunction with regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, clause 17 will open a world of opportunities for our brilliant EROs to use new data sources, both national and local, to get unregistered but eligible citizens on to the electoral register. It should also better streamline and hopefully, in time, reduce the administrative burden on EROs—for example, by reducing the need to send invitations to register and by softening the registration surges we see around election times.
We understand that direct registration is not appropriate for every kind of voter. As mentioned, there will be exemptions for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish to be registered in this way, or that they intend to make an application for registration. There is also an exemption for those who tell the ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application. There will also be an exemption where the ERO receives an application for registration of that person during the set response period.
We are not replacing the current system of registration, but are simply providing another means of registration. That will add a new, modernised mechanism that reflects the realities of how public bodies hold and use data today, and how individuals interact with those services. Direct registration offers many opportunities, but is not an overnight process. As will be covered in relation to clauses 20 to 25, it will take time to explore and test different data sources to ensure that they best identify eligible citizens. It will also take time to pilot and test the overall effectiveness of direct registration. There are significant opportunities here to move towards a more automated registration system that narrows the registration gap and builds a fuller and fairer democracy.
Amendment 26 proposes a new condition that must be met before the ERO registers someone without an application—that the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching. I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, and of course share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to ensuring that only eligible individuals are registered.
Under the Bill, an ERO must directly register someone only if they are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. We are robustly exploring and will rigorously test different Government datasets that could be used to aid EROs in their new direct registration duties. As part of that, we are exploring which datasets will provide EROs with sufficient assurance to determine that a person is entitled to be registered. We do not agree with specifying a minimum number of datasets that should be used to determine someone’s existence. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, there is the potential for one or two robust and well-tested datasets to provide sufficient assurance. In those cases, it would be unnecessary and inefficient to require an ERO to consider further datasets, so I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 18 is similar to clause 17, but focuses on a new process of direct alteration. It aims to improve the accuracy of our electoral registers in the simplest and easiest way possible for the voter. It will create a new process of alteration without application, also known as direct alteration. It creates a new duty for EROs to update people’s name or address details in their electoral register, where data shows that those have changed. Just like with direct registration, those whose details are directly altered will be informed through a notice that that is happening, and they will have the right to object during the response period.
The clause, alongside regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, will enable EROs to use new data sources to identify people whose registration details are incorrect and update their entries without those people having to submit an application of alteration. That will help the accuracy and integrity of the register, and will make things easier for EROs, who might otherwise contact voters at the wrong addresses or using the wrong names. It will also help to prevent people from missing out on their right to vote, by ensuring that the right details are recorded for them.
As mentioned previously, there will be an exemption for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish their entry to be altered in that way. There are other exemptions, including for those who tell their ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application.
We are not removing the ability of individuals to contact their ERO to update their own details. Clause 18 will create a new, modern process that will be tested and iterated over time. It will allow EROs to use data in a common-sense way to improve the accuracy of the electoral register.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 2 and makes further provision in connection with clauses 17 and 18 for registration without an application and for the alteration of certain registers without an application. Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 to allow for direct registration and alteration, and to build safeguards into the process.
I draw the Committee’s attention, in particular, to paragraphs 16 to 19 of schedule 2, which aim to ensure that if a person is an overseas elector or is applying to be one, a registration without application is disregarded if they did not ask for it to be made and they are still eligible to be an overseas elector. The clause aims to reduce the risk of a new entry being created without an application, which could then invalidate the registration or declaration of an overseas elector. That is needed to ensure that overseas electors do not inadvertently lose their right to their status as an overseas elector—for example, in the unlikely event that an ERO directly registers that person at an address at which they are not resident, and they miss the registration notice while they are overseas. We think the risk of that happening incorrectly is low, but we want to include safeguards in case it happens.
Amendment 27 proposes that direct registration and alteration duties for EROs—meaning registering someone or altering their registration details without that person submitting an application—and other, related provisions should not commence until after the Secretary of State has published an independent review. That review would look into the steps needed to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizens being directly registered. The amendment involves inserting a requirement for a review into clause 80, the Bill’s commencement clause.
David Simmonds
The Minister is addressing the pilots and how they will be learned from. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out some broad concerns about the risks to the integrity of the ballot of taking an inconsistent approach, whereby different groups of electors may be targeted for auto-enrolment in different local areas, such that we end up with inconsistency.
Another risk is around identity theft and fraud. For many people, a place on the electoral register is the start of obtaining credit or sometimes of applying for a job or benefits. I am very conscious, as I am sure we will all be from our constituency case work, that getting behind those kinds of fraud and identity theft can be extremely expensive and difficult. For example, a person may apply to go on the electoral register at someone else’s property without your permission. That person may not be genuine or even exist, but under this system, unless a response comes back saying that they do not wish to be added to the register, they will automatically be put on it. That opens a new avenue for fraudsters, and particularly identity thieves.
For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister therefore set out what consultations there have been with colleagues across Government about evaluating the risk of identity theft that this provision creates for our constituents?
Samantha Dixon
I simply suggest that the piloting, with the work of the EROs and the access to the datasets that establish the right and the eligibility to vote, are testing precisely the point the hon. Gentleman is making about avoiding election fraud. That is the purpose of the pilots.
David Simmonds
It is not so much about election fraud off the back of this; it is more about somebody getting themselves on the electoral register and applying for a credit facility. One thing the credit provider will check is whether they are on the electoral roll. That person may not exist at all, but because of auto-enrolment they are now on the electoral register, as a result of which they obtain credit. That opens up the risk of fake registrations, which we already hear about from trading standards. It would be helpful to understand what consideration the Government have given to that risk, particularly given the impact it has on vulnerable households among our constituents.
Samantha Dixon
The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.
EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.
Paul Holmes
I hope the Minister will forgive me—it is quite possible, indeed likely, that this is my ignorance—but she outlined the datasets the EROs will analyse. Will she clarify whether those will be the same datasets in each geographical area? If not, does that not risk creating a different set of parameters and methods for who would and would not be added to the register, which cannot be analysed at the end of the pilot? Does that make sense?
Samantha Dixon
Regrettably, the hon. Member may have to explain that to me again in a different way.
Paul Holmes
That is no reflection on the Minister; I do not think I explained it particularly well. The Minister outlined that the ERO will assess datasets to ascertain whether to add somebody to the electoral roll automatically. In the context of the pilots, would those datasets be the same types—the same original information sources—or could they vary, depending on who the ERO is and which geographical location they are in when adding someone to the electoral roll?
Samantha Dixon
The legislation takes forward the principle of piloting. The detail of those pilots will come through in secondary legislation. I will provide more clarity, if I can, for the hon. Member, but the principle of piloting is what we are talking about.
Paul Holmes
I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, because the concern I have is genuine; otherwise, I would be intentionally misleading the House, which I am not, I would not and I do not. The reason I asked the question is that we are about to take a significant step towards automatic registration. We have a disagreement, but that is what the Government are going to end up doing. It is therefore important that the data presents a secure and reliable way of putting people on the register. The reason I ask whether there will be different datasets or sources is that we cannot properly analyse the pilots if people are using different datasets.
How can the Minister be satisfied by saying that the principle of pilots must go ahead, but that the Government will unveil the detail in secondary legislation? We have seen this with this Government before, so it is not personal to the Minister, but that is a terrible way to draft legislation. The Minister and the Government are asking the Committee to make a significant change to the electoral registration system in this country, but they cannot tell us—we are straying into the next group, so I will reserve my comments for that—what the basic parameters will look like. How is that good public policymaking?
Samantha Dixon
To offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, as set out in the Government’s policy paper, “A blueprint for modern digital government”, “technology presents us with” the opportunity to
“improve the way that government delivers for the public”.
Our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, harnessing existing data from across Government to move to an automated system. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess whether the combined dataset that is already used to check registration applications and support the annual review of electoral registers could also help identify people who may not be registered. We are also working with the Home Office to explore whether its data could help to indicate whether people who are identified as eligible, but who are unregistered, appear to meet the nationality and immigration status requirements to vote. I hope that provides some comfort and clarity to the hon. Member. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment and commend clauses 17 to 19 and schedule 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
After the Minister’s winding up, I think it is even more necessary to push amendments 26 and 27 to a vote—particularly amendment 26, which concerns data checks. The Government are proposing a major change without the detail necessary to inform our decision on whether it should happen and with a lack of detail on the system to be proposed. They also cannot comment on what the datasets are or whether they could be different in different geographical locations. For all those reasons, I feel that I have to push both amendments to a vote.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring full transparency and integrity following any changes is even more important at the moment, given that the integrity of our electoral system is being called into question, including by some parties represented in the House of Commons that say that we cannot rely on the fairness and integrity of elections under the existing rules? Does he agree that the avoidance of future challenge and dissonance relies on this Committee’s being clear what the changes we are being asked to vote on mean in practice? If we cannot be clear with the voters about what this means for them, we should not be doing it. We should be coming back later when we can be clear.
Paul Holmes
I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.
Samantha Dixon
I have to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the integrity of the process will be challenged; that is not the Government’s intention in any way. The principle is that we will use the same Government datasets in each location, but also allow local EROs to use the local datasets that they have access to in addition to Government datasets. The principle of piloting is to test robustness and integrity—that is precisely why the pilots are so important.
Paul Holmes
The Minister said that the intention is not for these things to be challenged on the basis of integrity, but that does not provide clarity or certainty at all—it does not mean that there will not be a challenge or that it will not be successful. That is because of the lack of detail and transparency. The Committee is expected to decide on a new system without the parameters being laid out clearly and to rely on the Secretary of State to determine what automatic registration should look like through secondary legislation after a pilot. The details and the systems have not been outlined clearly to the Committee. That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would ensure that an electoral returning officer has three individual forms of check.
The Minister just outlined that EROs in different locations can access different datasets to reassure themselves that they should be putting someone on the roll. That sounds very similar to an ERO being able to check the register for three datasets, which is outlined in amendment 26. It seems to me that she has accepted the principle that EROs might need to determine the security of automatically enrolling someone through a number of datasets. Why are the Government so scared to ask for three? That would ensure the integrity and security that the Minister claims she wants and that I believe she wants. However, she is resisting amendment 26, which does exactly what she claims she wants to and adds a bit more detail on how the pilots will go forward.
I am afraid that for those reasons—a complete lack of clarity and transparency, and an expectation that the Opposition should trust the Government to come forward with the right decision in secondary legislation—we will have to press both amendments to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 21, page 33, line 33, at end insert—
“(8) voter registration provision does not mean any provision which amends the franchise for UK parliamentary elections or local elections in England.”
This amendment prevents the voter registration pilots being used to amend the franchise.
Clauses 21 to 25 stand part.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to make pilot regulations that test new and innovative methods of electoral registration. As part of our work to strengthen the registration system, the Government are exploring new and innovative ways of electoral registration.
By harnessing existing Government data and embracing new technology, we aim to modernise the process, making registration simpler and more accessible for citizens. However, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not merely in enclosed, controlled environments. By testing new registration methods in the real world, we will be able to ensure—to the best of our ability—that any new approaches to registration are both effective and secure. The Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and encouraging full participation by legitimate voters in our elections, and the clause forms a critical part of that work.
With the Committee’s indulgence, I will address amendment 28, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet been spoken to. It aims to ensure that the voter registration pilots, which are provided for in the Bill, cannot be used to amend the franchise. I reassure members of the Committee that the new piloting powers, as drafted, could not be used to amend the franchise.
Clause 20 creates a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to pilot changes to the voter registration process, which the Bill describes as “voter registration provision”. Clause 21 defines “voter registration provision”, making clear that it is limited to registering individuals entitled, under existing franchise eligibility criteria, to be registered. It also allows for existing register entries to be amended or removed. Our intention is to make registration easier and simpler for those already eligible to register to vote; it is not to amend the eligibility criteria for entitlement to register to vote. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment, as it is unnecessary.
Clause 21 seeks to clarify what is meant in clause 20 by “voter registration provision”, in relation to pilot regulations, by providing examples of what such regulations could entail. As I have just said, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not solely in enclosed, controlled environments. In July last year, the Government published our strategy for modern and secure elections, in which we noted that technology presents ever-expanding opportunities to improve the way in which the Government deliver for the public. Our ambition is to modernise our registration practices, harnessing data and moving towards an increasingly automated system, so that voters can be easily and simply registered to vote.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister probably knows the point I am about to make. I fully appreciate what she has just said about having to do these demos in real-world scenarios, but can she ensure that they will be conducted during elections where everybody is treated in the same way—that is, council elections—rather than at a general election, where she will create two types of elector? Can we have that reassurance?
Samantha Dixon
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope to address them as we go forward.
Clause 21 makes clear that piloting regulations may be used to explore this ambition further, including by testing new and innovative ways of using Government data to identify individuals and support them to register, as well as testing potential improvements to administrative processes. Our ambition is to support a modern, efficient registration system that makes participation straightforward for citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The clause plays an important role in providing the framework through which that ambition can be pursued.
Clause 22 builds on clause 21 by providing further clarity on the scope of the piloting powers set out in clause 20. It makes clear that pilots will take place in one or more areas, and that they may assess the impact of new registration methods on specific demographic groups. The clause also confirms that, in most circumstances, pilots will proceed only with the consent of the relevant electoral registration officer. It is right that those directly responsible for administering the pilot are engaged, informed and supportive of the approach being taken.
Furthermore, clause 22 allows pilot regulations, on a temporary basis, to create, suspend or disapply an offence or financial penalty where that is necessary for the effective conduct of a pilot. However, they cannot increase penalties beyond existing legal limits, nor introduce penalties or offences for individuals who fail to register or update their details. That ensures that the legal framework operates sensibly during the testing period while maintaining appropriate protections and proportionality.
Clause 22 provides breadth, flexibility and practicality to the proposed piloting framework, giving clarity to officials without imposing an overly rigid or exhaustive set of rules. In doing so, the provisions ensure that pilot schemes can be designed in a measured, proportionate and genuinely useful way, supporting the Government to realise their ambition to modernise electoral registration and make it simpler for citizens to engage with the democratic process.
I now turn to clause 23, which provides that any pilot regulations made under the new power conferred on the Secretary of State in clause 20 must be made by statutory instrument. Parliament is the proper forum for the scrutiny and oversight of such powers. Electoral registration is a matter of significant importance and sensitivity, and it is therefore right that parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine in full any proposed regulations establishing a new pilot.
Clause 23 provides that all regulations made under this piloting power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except where the regulations do no more than extend an existing pilot for no longer than 12 months, or amend the deadline by which the Electoral Commission must publish its evaluation report—in which case the SI will be subject to the negative procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure for the vast majority of cases reflects the long-standing convention that changes to electoral law should receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Safeguarding the security and inclusivity of our electoral registration system must remain paramount.
Clause 24 provides that the Electoral Commission will evaluate any pilots and produce a report. The Electoral Commission serves as an essential independent guardian of the integrity and transparency of our democratic processes. By upholding rigorous standards and providing impartial oversight, it helps ensure that electoral matters across the United Kingdom are conducted properly, securely and with public confidence.
By placing the Electoral Commission’s independent assessment at the heart of the evaluation of any electoral registration pilot, we ensure that Parliament, stakeholders and the public receive a clear, objective and authoritative appraisal of any pilot’s effectiveness. The clause reinforces our commitment to rigorous independent scrutiny by requiring the report to address specific issues. That includes an assessment of the extent to which a pilot has met its objectives and an evaluation of whether the changes made by the regulations represent a cost-effective means of achieving them.
Although we are ambitious about delivering a modern, more automated electoral registration system fit for the 21st century, we are equally mindful that robust processes and independent evaluation must remain integral to the testing of any new registration method. Clause 25 provides definitions for the four key terms used throughout clauses 20 to 24. This is an interpretive provision that defines key terms and is necessary for the operation of those clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. I do not know why I said that—it is a habit. But it is always lovely to see you; it is reminiscent of the 2015 general election.
Paul Holmes
Thank you very much.
These amendments relate to the pilot schemes. I do believe that the Government have been slightly naughty in how they are trying to promote these pilots. Not once have they consulted the Political Parties Panel or reached out on a cross-party basis to consult on changes to the franchise or to electoral systems, or on the cancellation of local elections.
The Government are completely entitled to set out a scope for pilots, but the clauses lack any detail on what we should expect the pilots to look like and what they are supposed to be delivering. Where is the detail about the datasets they will use? The transparency and sense of integrity are not there. The Minister said she wanted to reassure us—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I apologise for terminating the hon. Member’s contribution, but there is a Division. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. We will resume at 4.16 pm.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. It was a wonderful election campaign—oh, I’ve done that bit.
The clauses deal with voter pilot schemes. As I had started to outline, we are concerned that when it comes to electoral changes, voting age changes or anything to do with the electoral system, the Government have not really been transparent. They have not worked, as previous Governments did, on a cross-party basis through interaction and meetings with the parliamentary parties panel. As with the last few clauses, they have not outlined the detail necessary to satisfy us to support the clause and rely on secondary legislation.
Although I know that the Minister is a Minister of the utmost integrity—I have always believed that, so she should take that as read—she said that we should be reassured that voter pilot schemes would not be used to amend the franchise, which is the aim of my amendment 28, but the Secretary of State said in the House, two days before he cancelled local elections, that he would not cancel local elections. He was then taken to court, and it was found that the decision was not lawful. The Minister will forgive us if we are not entirely confident in the reassurances given, when Government Ministers have given reassurances on the Floor of the House and then done something else.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend refers to the recent judicial review. My understanding is that, rather than losing the judicial review, the Government actually offered no defence. They conceded because they did not wish to be transparent about the decision-making process that the Secretary of State had followed. Subsequent freedom of information requests sought to get under exactly what was happening, but clearly there was correspondence that the Government did not wish to place in the public domain. They preferred to abandon their devolution plans rather than concede on that point.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a great starting point for a Government who are asking us to take them on trust about pilot schemes with a complete absence of detail and no indication of who would be prioritised for auto-enrolment, what the geographical basis would be or what the decision-making process would be? It is not a good basis for asking us to take them on trust when the Government have not been willing to be transparent about elections that they were determined would go ahead, only to cancel them within literally 24 hours.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I say, this Minister is a Minister of integrity, but I find this out in opposition. I work for a shadow Secretary of State; the Minister works for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has been found to have said things in the Chamber that have turned out not to be the case. It is therefore not right for the Opposition to have confidence that we can rely on a reassurance from the Minister that the pilots will not be used to amend the franchise.
The wording of amendment 28 is so clear that there is no room for manoeuvre. Why does the Minister not accept the amendment and show us that her reassurance is worth the paper it is written on? The amendment would not fundamentally change the passage of the Bill or the parameters of the pilot, but it would provide reassurance that the Government will not use the pilots and whatever comes out of them for a reassessment through the Electoral Commission. We do not know the parameters of the pilots; their geography, as my hon. Friend says; who will be included in them; or the datasets that will be used. The Minister should accept the amendment and give us reassurance that the pilots will not be used to change the franchise.
The Opposition have repeatedly asked and challenged Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State when he took office, about whether local elections would go ahead. The Secretary of State then tried to stop those elections. We know why the Government did not want anybody to see the evidence or the correspondence. It was a pattern that this Government have shown before: putting their own political interests before the interests of the electoral system and before having a credible plan or a credible defence. That is why they were found out. That is why when I looked the Secretary of State in the eye and asked whether he would cancel the local elections, he said he would not—and then he did, on a Thursday morning when he would not get the scrutiny that he deserved from a full House of Commons.
David Simmonds
On the pattern of behaviour, the Minister has set out very clearly that the Government wish to rely on the independent Electoral Commission to appraise the outcome of the pilot schemes. But what we do not know—because the Government are not willing to set it out to this Committee, which it is asking to approve the principle of the pilots—is what it will appraise those pilot projects against. We do not know at this stage what the Government seek to achieve through the pilot projects. We therefore cannot assume that the Electoral Commission is in a position to give us the genuinely independent perspective that we expect of it.
Historically, there has been much debate about whether the Electoral Commission should be given a mandate by Parliament. One useful thing about such a mandate is that it would be able to say, for example, that a criterion for appraising pilots is the use of equality impact assessments to determine the impact of the pilots on people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, on younger voters specifically, and on younger voters with learning disabilities, who may be a subset of such voters. Without any clear sense from the Government of what the pilots will seek to achieve and how that will be implemented consistently, it is difficult for the Committee to be confident that the pilots will genuinely contribute to the integrity of the poll.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that in very recent history the Government have completely ignored the view of the Electoral Commission anyway. When the Government said that they would not cancel local elections, and then did, and then got found out in court and did not defend the case, the Electoral Commission said repeatedly that it disagreed with the Government’s stance on the local elections because the Government had not consulted and had breached the general rule that EROs and local authorities should be given at least six months’ notice of a change of poll.
The Electoral Commission was very clear, and I think it went as far as condemning the Government’s decision, but the Government ignored it. The Minister can outline how the Electoral Commission will be consulted, but they have ignored it before and it is very likely—in fact, given the pattern of behaviour of the Secretary of State, it is almost certain—that the Government will find the answer that they want to find, regardless of what the Electoral Commission review says.
We remain sceptical. This is not personal against the Minister. I like the Minister intensely—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I couldn’t think of another word. I like the Minister a lot, and I think she is a woman of integrity, but the pattern of behaviour from this Government is astounding, on consultation, on transparency and, actually, in Parliament. Ministers, who are governed by the ministerial code, have said that they will not do something and then gone ahead and done it anyway, in the cynical way that we have come to see from every Department in this Government. It is rotten from the top down.
On the pilots, the Minister has been clear that the parameters are not well established in the Bill and that she will want to come back with secondary legislation. Clause 20, “Power to pilot changes to the voter registration process”, states that the
“Secretary of State may by regulations make voter registration provision…in connection with…a register of parliamentary electors maintained under section 9 of RPA 1983”
and
“a register of local government electors”.
However, where it says that “regulations must specify”, there are certainly no parameters, and she is asking us to give the Government a blank cheque.
The Minister is asking us to approve pilots without any detail on what they may look like. She is also not saying how she will test whether those pilots are successful. When she winds up, will she outline to the Committee exactly what the parameters are for the pilots and the tests for what looks like success when they are finished?
Lewis Cocking
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech. Does he share my concern that the pilots may be done on the basis of council areas, but that everyone should be auto-enrolled at the same time, rather than creating two lists of electors for a general election? Does he agree that that, in itself, will undermine the next general election and undermine democracy as a whole? Does he also agree that the Government must provide more detail about these demos, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose who they do and do not want to enrol, with this Committee and the House having no say in the matter?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely. As I have attempted to outline, and as I think my hon. Friend is saying, without such detail why should people trust a word that the Government say? It has been the same with other legislation, as I know from being a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, and it is pretty clear that it comes from the top of Government.
Let us look at the detail of clauses 21 and 22. Subsections (3) and (5) of clause 21 state that it
“includes provision relating to…the identification of individuals who are not registered”—
that goes without saying—and
“the identification of changes relevant to entries in the register, and…the maintenance of registers”,
as well as
“the form of the register…the procedure to be followed in the preparation of the register…the publication of the register”,
but there is no detail. If this Government are so clear about what they want to do with automatic registration, they should set out clearly the parameters for its implementation and should have an idea of what they want from it, but I must say that everything in the Bill about what they want from the pilots is fairly generic guff.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that this measure could be reintroduced during the next parliamentary Session, when we can give a lot more thought to where the demos will take place and to the detail of who will be auto-enrolled first, and we can properly scrutinise the Government? As he rightly points out, this Government have made a number of U-turns. It is very difficult to trust a word that Ministers say or to know whether they will keep their word about the Bills they bring in. Does he agree that, rather than rushing the Bill through in this Session, the Government need to go away, think again and come back with fresh ideas when they put the legislation before Parliament in the next Session?
Paul Holmes
The Government have the luxury of being able to carry over this Bill. Its Report stage will be not in this Session, but in the next. Ministers have plenty of time to do this properly and not only give it proper scrutiny and listen to this Committee, but go away and think about it. Instead of bringing in amendments in secondary legislation, they could tell us what the pilots should look like and what they want to achieve from them. So far, the Bill does not do so.
My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have to finish the Bill by the end of this Session. The Committee has to finish in this Session, but Report can be held whenever the Government want after we come back for the next Session, because there is a carry-over order. There is no need to rush to Report and get the Bill through as quickly as possible. That mechanism is in place, so the Minister has time to strengthen this part of the Bill.
It is alien to me, but unfortunately it is a testament to the attitudes of this Government—and particularly this Department, when it comes to changing key indicators in terms of voting age, but also in terms of the way that people vote—that they want us to give them a blank cheque without giving us the details that any reasonable Member of this House would require.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made the constructive suggestion that we proceed on the basis of local authority areas for the use of the electoral roll in the local poll so that everybody who is standing or voting in the election can have confidence that they will be treated equally. Earlier in our debates, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out her sympathy with the proposal for the pilots, but I am sure that no Member of this House would be content to lose narrowly in an election, only to discover that in their constituency—perhaps alone in the country—there had been a programme to auto-enrol a specific cohort of voters who had not been auto-enrolled in the same way in neighbouring constituencies or in the rest of the country. That would fundamentally call into question the integrity of the poll.
I know that the Government have had serious concerns and reflections internally following the allegations made at the Gorton and Denton by-election. I do not think that most of us accept that those allegations are correct. None the less, the level of doubt that has been cast on elements of the process is of concern to Members across the House. The Government should be in listening mode. They should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and should seek to do this properly, so that all voters and candidates in elections can have confidence that they will be treated equally and consistently across the country.
Paul Holmes
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for not responding to his very reasonable suggestion. If the Minister were to say that she wanted to base pilots across the country on a local authority area, I am sure that many local authorities would jump at the chance to be at the front of delivering it and would work with her to do so. However, it potentially calls into question the integrity of the polls when that is based on a certain characteristic, or on an area that does not necessarily cover the whole area in which people are entitled to vote.
There is a cross-boundary issue with general elections and local elections; my constituency has three local areas with three different EROs within its boundaries. The way in which the automatic registration pilots will go ahead is just not universal. I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, we Liberal Democrats support the Government on automatic voter registration. I have just one question for the Minister: can she confirm which datasets the Government plan to use when piloting AVR?
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s proposal is to introduce a broad power for the Secretary of State to make regulations on pilots testing new, innovative methods of electoral registration. We want to modernise electoral registration to make it simpler for people to engage in a genuinely useful, measured and proportionate way.
The pilot design is in the developmental stage, and we have not decided where pilots will be conducted, but it is essential that Members note that for a pilot to go ahead, secondary legislation will be required. That will mean that Parliament always has the opportunity to scrutinise a proposal in detail, including on the use of datasets, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. We are clear that any permanent changes to the registration process will be grounded in robust evidence and informed by thorough user research. I am confident that they will also be extremely well evaluated by the Electoral Commission.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The existing canvass regime in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose. The current system requires the register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of the canvass to remain on the register. Electors who do not respond to canvass are removed from the register even if the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds data to confirm that they are eligible. That means there is a risk that a significant number of eligible electors are lost from the register, impacting its integrity and accuracy. The Government are legislating to address those challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass.
The aim of this reform is to move towards a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. Crucially, it will also avoid the arbitrary removal of eligible voters and improve the accuracy of the Northern Ireland register. Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, with whom we are working closely on the new system.
Paul Holmes
Can the Minister outline what political engagement she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what they make of these proposals, and whether she has had written communications from them on that?
Samantha Dixon
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points at a later date, if I may. However, the First Minister and officers attended one of our evidence sessions, and I have engaged with colleagues who attended drop-ins as a result of this legislation coming forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Bill passes, will it require a legislative consent motion?
Samantha Dixon
I will hopefully come to that point, but it will not.
The details of the new canvass system will be set out in regulations following consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, and will be subject to piloting. This change will support increased participation in elections in Northern Ireland and bring the Northern Ireland canvass system into closer alignment with Great Britain.
Clause 27 is a consequence of clause 26. Before making any regulations under clause 26, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission. Where the commission has been consulted, clause 27 places a duty on it to prepare a report about a proposal to make regulations under clause 26, which is the new power to amend the canvass.
Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission, and officials will work closely with the commission on it. It is important that the commission has an opportunity to consider the details of the new canvass system to ensure that the proposed changes are effective and robust before they are implemented. The provision mirrors the role that the Electoral Commission had when the canvass system was reformed in Great Britain.
Clause 28 is also a consequence of clause 26. The Government are legislating to address current challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass. The aim of this reform is to move toward a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. However, these are technical and complex changes, and it is important that we get them right, so it is proper that the new canvass system will be subject to successful piloting. We will work closely with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on the design of any pilots. I commend clause 28 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.
I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.
David Simmonds
Although we do not have a representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee, we have had a number of debates in which a variety of these issues have been raised, and we took evidence on them specifically. The electoral system, registration system and arrangements for elections have been different in Northern Ireland for some time anyway, and that reflects part of the fairly complex political history of that part of our United Kingdom. One of the commonalities that we have with Ireland is the ability of people there to cast their vote in general elections in the United Kingdom and vice versa.
Will the Minister set out—perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me that we need a bit more detail on this—what conversations have happened not just with the Northern Ireland Executive but with the Government of Ireland? A number of provisions mean that the Province, in which people will have the ability to vote as a United Kingdom voter and also, potentially, in Ireland, especially if they are dual electors, will have different electoral rules. It is particularly important that that is fully considered, especially before pilots, which might make further changes, are implemented without the element of local consent.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.
We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.
Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,
“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”
In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.
We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.
Samantha Dixon
To reassure Members, we have worked very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, as well as other devolved Governments, in the development of the Bill. Elections in Northern Ireland are an entirely reserved matter for the UK Government. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from all parties across Parliament were invited to come to drop-in sessions. A number of Northern Ireland colleagues did, and I also met the leadership of those parties that wished to meet me as we developed the legislation.
I beg your indulgence, Dame Siobhain, and that of the Committee: I should have spoken to clause 29 at the same time that I addressed the other clauses in the group. Clause 29 is a consequence of clause 28, which provides for the piloting power in relation to amending the Northern Ireland canvass by regulations. As I noted earlier, it is proper that the new canvass system is subject to successful piloting. It is also important that the Electoral Commission has an opportunity to consider any canvass pilots and report on their effectiveness and robustness before they are implemented. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and I will have to agree to disagree about the role of piloting. In my view, it is the way that we iteratively and robustly test ways in which a policy can be delivered. When we get to secondary legislation, the specifics of the piloting powers will be set out, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those powers.
Paul Holmes
How can a policy be tested robustly if the Government have not outlined the policy position or what they want to get out of a pilot, and we do not know how robustly that is going to be tested, because the details of the pilots are not outlined in primary legislation and would come only through secondary legislation?
Samantha Dixon
We could go over and over this point. The Government have set out, in some detail, their objectives for the electoral system. In the case of the Northern Ireland canvass, we have set out the principles, we want to test them, we are taking the powers to test them, and we will come back to Parliament with specifics of those pilots so that they can be scrutinised as profoundly and deeply as Members choose to scrutinise them.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. As I am a relative newbie in this House, could you clarify why it is permitted for a request to be made to vote individually on a range of grouped clauses, when everybody is voting exactly the same way on them, such that we have had five separate votes, all of which have gone the same way, and we are about to have four more? Is it possible to stop the waste of time?
The Chair
As Chair, I am completely in the hands of the Committee. Amendments and clauses are grouped to reduce the time taken—it is an administrative thing—but if anybody on the Committee wishes a vote to be taken separately, they are perfectly entitled to request that. I can give no better reason than that.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I think it should be entirely out of order for an hon. Member to make a point of order and say that I am time-wasting. I am taking my responsibilities as shadow Minister very seriously by calling for Divisions, as is the democratic right of any Member of this House, in order to allow our constituents to see how we voted on the clauses in this very important Bill. Can you advise me whether saying that someone is time-wasting is in order in this Committee?
The Chair
I do not think the hon. Lady meant it in that way. She wanted clarification of the procedure, and I have given it. Everybody on the Committee completely accepts that you are entitled to request separate decisions.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said the words, from a sedentary position, “It is time-wasting.”
The Chair
I say to all Committee members: if you want to ask a question, please ask it. There is no issue with that, and we will attempt to accommodate all Members in order to get the best possible discussion and the best possible process. I think Members may be getting tired.
Clause 28
Power to pilot proposals under section 26
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, I need to make a number of announcements. Will everyone ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or in silent mode?
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, pass their notes to the Hansard colleague in the room.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group, they need to let me know. The order of decision follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that is helpful.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This clause is an essential part of each and every Armed Forces Bill, as it provides for the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be renewed for a further five-year period. Without it, the 2006 Act would expire on 14 December 2026.
For constitutional and legal reasons, an Armed Forces Act is required every five years. That requirement for Parliament’s agreement for continuation has its origin in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which provides that the raising of a standing army is against the law unless Parliament consents to it. Primary legislation, an Armed Forces Act, is therefore required every five years, this one to renew the 2006 Act to provide for the armed forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. The most recent Armed Forces Act was the 2021 Act, which provided for annual continuation in force of the 2006 Act by an Order in Council, but not beyond the end of 2026. That means that this Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent before 14 December 2026.
Clause 1 replaces section 382 of the 2006 Act with a proposed new section 382 that provides for the 2006 Act to be continued until the end of 2031. It provides specifically for the 2006 Act to expire one year after the Royal Assent of this Bill, but it also provides for it then to be continued annually—rather than expiring—by an Order in Council up to, but not beyond, the end of 2031. As a consequence of clause 1, section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which inserted existing section 382 and the expiry date of 2026 into the 2006 Act, is repealed.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
By way of some brief introductory remarks, Mr Offord—
Mr Francois
I apologise, Mr Efford. As you say, get it right!
This was not a contentious Bill on Second Reading. As we said during that debate, we think our role is primarily to act as a critical friend to the Bill. That does not mean we will not disagree on anything at all, but it does mean that, now we are in Committee, we will attempt to approach the Bill in a constructive manner. I hope we can do a lot of that in a collegial way.
I want to place on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of all right hon. and hon. Members, to the Clerks and yourself, Mr Efford, for organising some extremely effective evidence sessions—we have already taken a lot of evidence on the Bill—and in particular for organising an extremely effective visit to Portsmouth to look, among other things, at the operation of the service justice system and defence housing. That has all been a positive start and, within reason, we will attempt to continue in the same manner. We have no objection to clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
In the same vein, we see the Bill as part of our constitutional duty, and one that will help us to deliver the best for our service personnel—an aim that we all share. I echo the shadow Minister’s thanks to the Clerks and you, Mr Efford. I, too, look forward to working collegially across the Committee to ensure that we get the best Bill possible.
Al Carns
I will triple down on what was said and say thank you very much to an amazing team, first, for putting together great evidence sessions and, secondly, for approaching this in a positive and pragmatic way. I also thank the Opposition parties for also being pragmatic in the way we move this forward in the best keeping of our armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Armed forces covenant
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
“‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.”
This amendment defines due regard for the purposes of interpreting section 2 of the Armed Forces Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC National protocol for consistent access to public services
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services for service people and relevant family members.
(2) The national protocol must set out standardised procedures and expectations for the persons specified in section 343AZA(4) regarding the exercise of their functions in relation to the matters specified in section 343AZA(5).
(3) In exercising a public function to which section 343AZA applies, a person specified in section 343AZA(4) must act in accordance with the national protocol.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the national protocol before each House of Parliament no later than six months after the day on which the Armed Forces Act 2026 is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the national protocol and must publish and lay before each House of Parliament any revised version.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to create and publish a national protocol to ensure Armed Forces Families receive consistent access to essential public services.
David Reed
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. Amendment 8, standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is a straightforward but important amendment. Its purpose is simple: to place a clear and consistent definition of “due regard” on the face of the Bill. I know that many colleagues will agree with that.
At present, due regard sits at the very heart of how relevant authorities will interpret and apply their obligations under the armed forces covenant. It is the mechanism through which the intentions of Parliament will be translated into real decisions on the ground and yet, as the Bill stands, the term itself is not defined. That creates a problem. Where Parliament relies on a concept without defining it, we leave room for inconsistency, uncertainty and, ultimately, uneven delivery.
Different authorities may take different views about what due regard requires of them. Some may interpret it robustly and act with care and diligence; others may, perhaps unintentionally, adopt a narrow reading and do the minimum necessary to demonstrate compliance. That cannot be what we want. If the covenant is to mean anything in practice, it must be applied consistently across the country. Service personnel, veterans and their families should not face a postcode lottery in how their needs are considered. The principle of fairness that underpins the covenant demands that we get this right and, I hope, get it right first time.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that due regard is a long-established legal concept that lots of public bodies already understand? It is already routinely applied in practice, and to change the definition for the purposes of the Bill would be to go down an erroneous path.
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; she is an expert in these areas.
National Governments have legal teams to help them interpret the concept of due regard and apply it evenly across their Departments. When we get down to the local council level—I think we have all experienced this—that might be more inconsistent because the skills might not be there to bolster that support. We need to make it clearer. It might not be a case of changing the nature of due regard but of making it more explicit so that councils can interpret it.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the Defence Committee report on the armed forces covenant, which is based on evidence from witnesses. It says:
“As the current duty of ‘due regard’ is inconsistently interpreted, the extended duty must be accompanied by clear guidance so that the duty is clearly understood and is not treated as a tick-box exercise.”
It goes on to say:
“We heard many examples where the Covenant was not working as designed, resulting in people who have served being financially disadvantaged, unable to access medical care, or unable to find an appropriate school for their children as a result of their service.”
That was all due to the wishy-washy interpretation of due regard.
David Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has a lot of experience in local government, so I take his view on this topic and look forward to hearing his substantive speech on it.
Amendment 8 does not introduce a new or burdensome requirement. It simply reflects existing guidelines and established practice, and provides clarity, not complication. By setting out what due regard means in the Bill, we ensure that everyone is working from the same understanding from the outset. In practical terms, placing a definition in the Bill would make it clear that local authorities and other relevant bodies must consciously consider the needs of the armed forces community when making decisions in scope of the covenant. It would require more than a cursory acknowledgment; it would require proper thought, proper sentiment and a willingness to adjust decisions where appropriate. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Local authorities already operate within similar frameworks in other areas of public policy, and the duty to have due regard is well understood in some areas and councils.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we may be jumping the gun slightly? The covenant’s statutory guidance will explain in detail what due regard means in practice.
David Reed
I would rather have it in the legislation from the outset. We could take a position where we hope that local authorities will sit down and read through the legislation but, as we have seen over the last few years, that has not been applied in the current understanding of the covenant. I would rather the definition be explicit for local authorities. That would also provide a nice feedback loop, because if it is not working, it can go straight back to the Ministry of Defence and we can work on making amendments to the overall legislation.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
When coming to a definition that everybody can agree on, it often ends up being very narrow, because that is what the group can agree on and apply. Does the hon. Member agree that if we end up defining due regard in the Bill, the definition will be narrow and, by its very nature, bodies will apply it in a very narrow sense in practice, to the detriment of veterans and service personnel?
David Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she makes a good point. But who defines “narrow”? From what we have seen with local authorities, most councils want to go above and beyond the covenant, because people in the council might have served in the military or had military families and they want to do more than what is already stated. Having the base, narrow explanation in the Bill will give everyone the base requirement, and it is a powerful thing to include—it is important to be explicit.
The amendment simply ensures that the same level of care is applied, and it is also about accountability. Without that clear definition, it becomes hard to assess whether an authority has fulfilled its duty. A defined standard provides a benchmark against which performance can be measured. It gives confidence to service families and ensures that their circumstances are properly considered; it also gives clarity to authorities about what is expected of them.
Rachel Taylor
It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship.
Liberal Democrat amendment 5 is well intentioned, but I find it troubling. The hon. Member for North Devon seems to be trying to create a minimum requirement that organisations might reach and then decide that they will take no further action. I am hugely concerned that it could be detrimental to delivering the best possible service to veterans and service personnel. A one-size-fits-all national protocol removes the ability for decisions to be made at a local level and tailored for local context and circumstances.
Mike Martin
Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that it is a floor, rather than a target.
Rachel Taylor
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that, but instead we should push our local authorities and other public bodies to create tailored solutions. For example, I recently asked organisations in my constituency how they are supporting the armed forces covenant, and I was delighted with the response I received. Organisations reached out to explain the specific actions that they have taken, and how they have gone above and beyond to support armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.
Warwickshire police told me that it has achieved gold status in the defence employer recognition scheme, which is managed by the Ministry of Defence. It has developed an armed forces network that has worked hard to develop referral pathways for veterans and their families. We should encourage organisations to aspire to be the best that they can be and to achieve that gold status, rather than enforcing a basic minimum.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making. We need to encourage the best from all our services, local authorities, police, education, courts and so on. We should not lose the approach of striving for the best, in favour of having a national minimum, because that becomes a drive to the bottom. We need to allow organisations to design their own approach with their local community to do the best they can for the armed forces—veterans and serving personnel—within their communities.
Ian Roome
It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised.
Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too.
The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.
Mike Martin
Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the heart of the covenant is about establishing parity and equity of service provision for all serving personnel and veterans, we must establish exactly what that means as a minimum? Without establishing what services must be provided—as a floor, not a ceiling—how can we have equity across the country?
Ian Roome
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Published guidance can be interpreted differently from authority to authority. It is about how they put that into action.
Local NHS services have a mad patchwork of transfer rules depending on where someone moves from across the country, which can make access to medical care difficult, as I am sure some of us have experienced—I have, because I have a large garrison in my constituency, and I receive casework from serving personnel about the difference that they have experienced around the country. That is part of what we are trying to fix.
We should expect the Secretary of State to put specific protocols in writing for local bodies across the country. That would be fairer to our service personnel, but it would also make the Government’s responsibilities clearer—it would end our discussion now, where we are asking what due regard means—if local bodies fail to uphold what is being asked for in the Bill. The amendment would require a standardised set of protocols to be produced by the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill passing, require local bodies to act accordingly, and require the protocols to be brought back to Parliament when the procedures need to be revised.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to focus my remarks on amendment 8, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East set out, seeks to provide a clear and practical definition of due regard in the Bill. If Parliament is placing a legal duty on public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, it is only right that it should be clear what that duty requires in practice.
The Bill places a duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions, as set out in proposed new section 343AZA(5) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, including in areas such as healthcare, housing, education, transport and pensions. However, the term “due regard” itself is not defined in the Bill or elsewhere, which creates a very real risk of inconsistent interpretation or application.
Amendment 8 would resolve that uncertainty by defining due regard as requiring public bodies to
“think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.”
That would not represent a change of policy; it would merely clarify how the duty is to operate. It would make explicit what many would assume is already intended, but which is not currently set out in the Bill.
The armed forces covenant itself is well understood by many. It reflects the principle that those who have served our armed forces, and their families, should not be put at a disadvantage compared with other citizens in accessing public services. It also recognises that, in some cases, special consideration may be appropriate. I think those principles are widely supported not just in this place but among the wider public. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are also reflected in the decision-making processes of public bodies.
The effectiveness of the duty to have due regard to the covenant depends in large part on how due regard is understood and applied. In the absence of a definition, there is scope for variation. Some public bodies may interpret the duty as requiring active and meaningful consideration of the covenant in their decision-making processes; others may take a more limited approach, treating it as a procedural requirement that can be satisfied with relatively minimal engagement. That variation matters in practice.
Members of the armed forces and their families frequently move between different parts of the country, and they rely on services provided by local authorities, healthcare systems and other public bodies. A lack of consistency in how the covenant is applied can result in uneven access to support in those circumstances. Let us take the example of a service family who move from one area to another. They may encounter different approaches to school admissions, healthcare provision and housing allocation. If due regard is interpreted differently in every area, the level of support available may itself vary significantly.
Amendment 8 would support a more consistent and coherent approach. By defining due regard clearly, it would establish a common standard that can be applied across different public bodies. The proposed definition is deliberately balanced: it would require public bodies to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight, but it would not require a particular outcome in any given case, and it would not override other relevant considerations. It would simply ensure that decision makers exercise judgment and balance competing factors. At the same time, it would ensure that the covenant is not overlooked or treated as an afterthought. It requires active consideration—that is the way it must be interpreted.
The reference to appropriate weight would make it clear that the covenant must be taken seriously, even if it is not determinative. That reflects the approach taken in other areas of public law where due regard is applied, in which contexts the courts have been very clear that the duty involves more than simple awareness; it requires informed and timely consideration of the relevant principles as part of the decision-making process. Amendment 8 would adopt that well-established understanding and apply it in the context of the armed forces covenant, providing a much clearer framework within which public bodies can operate.
It is worth reminding ourselves that clarity is important not only for public bodies, but for those affected by their decisions. Members of the armed forces community need to know what they can reasonably expect when engaging with public services. A clearly defined duty would help provide that assurance to them and their families. It would also support accountability. Where a duty is clearly defined, it is easier to assess whether it has been properly discharged. With the proposed definition in place, Parliament and others would be better placed to scrutinise how public bodies are applying the covenant in practice. Without a definition, that scrutiny becomes much more difficult; it is less clear what standard is being applied, and therefore harder to identify when that standard has not been met. Amendment 8 would strengthen both the operation of the duty and the ability to hold public bodies to account for its delivery.
Mr Francois
Does my hon. Friend agree that the words that we have used in the amendment are taken verbatim from the Minister’s letter of 9 March 2026? We asked him to provide a definition of due regard; he duly wrote to the Committee very promptly, and we have quoted the first sentence verbatim. These are not random words; this is the Minister’s definition. All we are seeking to do is place it in the Bill.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful, as always, to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has hit the nail on the head. This is not something novel; it is merely codifying—formalising in the Bill—what has already been written in evidence to us, which seems eminently sensible.
It is important to consider the practical impact of the amendment on public bodies. The definition would not impose a new or onerous requirement. Public bodies are already accustomed to taking into account statutory duties and policy considerations in their decision-making processes. A requirement to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight would fit squarely within that existing framework. It would not require extensive additional processes or resources. It would not mandate detailed reporting or specific outcomes. Instead, it would provide a clear instruction about how the covenant should be treated alongside other relevant factors. In practice, that may involve ensuring that decision makers are aware of the covenant and understand its implications. It may involve considering how policies affect members of the armed forces community and whether adjustments are needed to avoid disadvantage. Those seem eminently sensible and wise factors to put in this piece of legislation.
In education, that could mean taking into account the particular challenges faced by a service child who moves schools frequently. In healthcare, it could involve considering continuity of care for families who relocate. In housing, it could involve recognising the impact of service-related mobility on access to accommodation. In each of those cases, the duty does not require a specific result; it requires consideration of the relevant factors, including the covenant, and a balanced decision based on those factors. Amendment 8 would therefore support decision making without constraining flexibility.
We often hear concerns that defining duties in legislation may increase the risk of legal challenge. In my view, in this case, the greater clarity that the amendment would introduce is more likely to reduce that risk and be a protective factor. Where duties are clearly defined, public bodies are better able to understand and comply with them, which reduces the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty about what is required. Conversely, where duties are unclear, there is a greater risk of inconsistent application and challenge.
By setting out what due regard means in this context, the amendment would provide a clearer basis for compliance. Importantly, it would reduce ambiguity. It is also relevant that the definition is framed in general terms; it does not describe details or steps that must be followed in every case. That would allow public bodies to apply the duty in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances that they face. That flexibility is important given the range of functions and decisions to which the duty will apply.
The amendment aligns with the overall purpose of the Bill. The intention is to embed the principles of the armed forces covenant in the work of public bodies. A clearly defined duty would support that objective by ensuring that the covenant is considered in a consistent and meaningful way. If the duty is left undefined, there is a risk that its impact will vary significantly between organisations, which would undermine the aim of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by supporting a more effective and consistent implementation. It would also reflect the practical realities of service life.
Members of the armed forces and their families frequently experience moves and disruption as part of their service. They rely on public services in different parts of the country and need those services to respond in a consistent and informed way. A clear definition of due regard would help to support that consistency, providing a common framework for decision making that recognises the particular circumstances of the armed forces community. It is not about giving preferential treatment in all cases; it is about ensuring fairness in line with the principles of the covenant. That includes avoiding disadvantage and, where appropriate, providing additional support. The amendment would ensure that those principles are properly taken into account.
Amendment 8 would make a targeted and practical improvement to the Bill. It would support a more consistent application of the armed forces covenant by public bodies, provide greater clarity for decision makers and those affected by their decisions, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation. Most importantly, it would help to ensure that the covenant is applied in a way that has a real effect on day-to-day decision making. For those reasons, I view the amendment as a useful and proportionate clarification that would strengthen the operation of the duty as set out in the Bill.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I want to add further weight to the points that colleagues have already made. Service personnel themselves have said that the armed forces covenant, while incredibly well meaning, needs to be enacted and enforced properly. It also needs to be explained to the forces themselves what it means and what is on offer to them. With the duty’s extension going as far as it does, we must be absolutely clear what it means in practice, in order to ensure its enforcement. I speak as a lawyer, too, and the enforcement issue is always the biggest problem with any legislation that comes out of this place.
From the evidence sessions we know that the statutory guidance will be doing a lot of the heavy lifting, but we do not know what it will look like or what form it will take—that is not in front of us—so it is important that we discuss and consider the definition of due regard. Including a definition would bring more clarity to the Bill, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said. During the evidence sessions, many Members questioned what due regard means, so it is really important that we ensure that our local bodies know, via a definition on the face of the Bill, what we are hoping and aiming for them to achieve.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Members for Exmouth and Exeter East, for Solihull West and Shirley, and for South Northamptonshire, for amendment 8, which seeks to define “due regard” in the Bill. I recognise their intent, their positivity and their commitment to the covenant, but I cannot accept the amendment.
The amendment is unnecessary because due regard is a long-established legal concept that public bodies already understand and routinely apply in practice. The existing covenant duty of due regard is already driving positive change in its current areas of housing, healthcare and education.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Does the Minister not accept that there is inconsistent application of the covenant across public bodies, and that to try to fix that, which all of us on the Committee are seeking to do, there is strength in codifying it in the Bill?
Al Carns
I absolutely agree, and I am one of the biggest champions for shouting about the postcode lottery in the delivery of the covenant. Putting that in the Bill would not change it. It requires education, communication and, in a lot of ways, internal support within local authorities to deliver it. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East mentioned the lack of skills at local council level—that is the problem. It is not necessary to amend the Bill; the statutory guidance will be absolutely clear and concise on what the covenant means.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. I do not disagree that, to a greater or lesser extent, this is a matter of education, but there is the issue of guidance being guidance and not being mandatory. If a definition were included in the Bill, it would provide a much stricter framework—alongside the education piece for local authorities—to ensure that we are getting this right. Does he agree?
Al Carns
I agree with the premise of the hon. Member’s point. Where I disagree is in how local authorities may view that and how it may restrict their ability to deliver services across other requirements, in line with local priorities. In my letter to the Committee, I wrote:
“When developing the Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty, due regard was deliberately chosen to bring about lasting positive change…whilst at the same time retaining some flexibility for public bodies to make decisions that are right for their local context and circumstances.”
That is really important, because some of our constituencies will have different levels of need compared with others. Some may have large veteran populations; others may not. Some may have a large number of cancer patients, for example. Prioritising veterans in a very narrow, bounded line above those individuals may skew a whole list of requirements and needs across other public services, hence my point about communication and education, and then the yearly accountability in line with the covenant, which is critical to ensure a level of accountability.
Government Departments are also demonstrating how covenant considerations are driving change in practice. For example, this Government have gone further than before by removing local connection requirements for access to social housing for all veterans. I would be really interested if the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has examples of where that local connection requirement has not been removed; if he does, I ask him, please, to highlight them to my office so that we can take them on and deal with them, because we removed the requirement last year.
Our experience of the public sector equality duty also shows that a duty of due regard, when properly supported, is sufficient to drive lasting cultural and organisational change, but I do accept that this is the first step to moving in that direction. In addition, the covenant’s statutory guidance, which we can scrutinise in due course, will include a dedicated section explaining what due regard means in practice, including the key issues faced by the armed forces community that bodies must consider. I would welcome the whole House’s view on how that can be improved—if, indeed, it thinks it should be.
Mr Francois
I do not think the Minister ever served in local government—he was serving his country in uniform, so I mean no slight by that comment—but I did for four years, albeit in the last century. I remember that primary legislation had more effect than guidance on councils, not least because even then we were drowning in such guidance—there is even more of it to drown in now. Would he accept that having something in primary legislation is more likely to get a councillor to do something about it than if it is included in reams of guidance, which they tend to drown in anyway on a weekly basis?
Al Carns
While I may not have served in local government, I absolutely acknowledge that we drown in bureaucracy across the UK. I would say that, compared with primary legislation, a councillor is far more likely to listen to and acknowledge an individual who has experience of armed forces service and who tries to enforce, educate and communicate the requirement to comply with the covenant.
There are two things that are going to bring about change. The first is armed forces champions across local councils, who do a fantastic job. They can be paid and there are no terms of reference; the role has not been standardised. The second thing, which will really change things over time, is the Valour programme, under which local field officers will help communicate and educate on compliance with the covenant over time, and help those councillors who perhaps do not understand it to deliver in line with it more effectively.
Ian Roome
I was a local armed forces champion. I was in local government for 22 years and ended up being council leader before entering this place. I can tell the Committee that, in practice, I was going around and screaming my head off to make sure that people were listening but, as it was not mandatory, they could just refer to due regard and make their interpretation of the guidance. I was a local armed forces champion for eight years, right up until I entered this place in July 2024, and I struggled to get veterans the help they needed. I just want the Minister to take that on board.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service, both in the military and in local government, and as an armed forces champion. The honest reality is that as the duty is broadened from three areas to 12 plus two, local councils will be held to account to deliver for the armed forces community—and not just for veterans, but for families and others. The statutory guidance will be really clear. Combine that with field officers, under Op Valour, holding councils to account, with clear terms of reference that are standardised across the UK, and I think we will see a massive improvement in services, not just for veterans but for the broader armed forces community.
Mr Francois
I do not want to labour the point, but in reality, a lot often comes down to the calibre of the armed forces champion in a particular council; I am sure that the hon. Member for North Devon was an excellent one. If such a champion were in a debate in full council—on how to amend housing policy to advantage veterans, say—it would be far more effective for them to be able to point to a section in an Act of Parliament than to paragraph 212B(III) of some Government circular. An argument is far more effective in a council chamber if a person can wave an Act of Parliament; I have seen people do it. Does the Minister not accept that if we are trying to empower armed forces champions to deliver at ground level, having a definition in the Bill would be very helpful?
Al Carns
Empowering armed forces champions is not necessarily the solution; unfortunately, whether we like it or not, armed forces champions differ between councils. I am not an expert, as some members of the Committee are, but I have travelled to many local councils and seen where it works exceptionally well. For example, in Manchester, armed forces champions are paid and employed by the council and have clear terms of reference. Other areas do not even have armed forces champions. To deliver the most consistent change, the solution is not necessarily to empower armed forces champions but to provide a set of terms of reference for the accountable individuals in councils to uphold the covenant and support veterans, across the entire nation, in line with the Valour programme.
Mr Foster
On this Committee, we have veterans and former council leaders, and I am both. One of the main reasons for all the changes being made in the Bill is a recognition that, historically, the covenant has not been delivered appropriately by local authorities. However, does the Minister agree that there is evidence that it has significantly improved recently, and that including Op Valour will take that improvement a step further?
Al Carns
I completely agree. The reality is that the implementation of the covenant has been really narrow, across three different Departments. The Bill will broaden the number of policy areas it covers to 12 plus two, which will put an onus on councils and allow people to hold them to account on delivering in line with the armed forces covenant. That is a positive step in the right direction. When we combine that with Valour over time, starting small and broadening out, we will end up with a data-based solution that ensures that councils can support their armed forces community in a more effective and balanced manner.
A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I promise the Minister that this will be the last time I intervene.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That was a lawyer’s promise; the Minister can read it as he wills.
Does the Minister not think that having a definition of due regard in the Bill would assist the courts in interpreting its application in cases where a public body’s decision is challenged by a member of the armed forces community?
Al Carns
When it comes to the legal process, we must ensure that there is the flexibility in local councils to adhere to the covenant in line with the broader issues and capacity that they may have to deal with. Some council areas have a huge number of veterans, and others have very few. Many councils, including mine in Birmingham, have a huge housing problem. Should we prioritise a single mum with a child, or a veteran? If we made that too explicit, we would skew how local councils view veterans and the armed forces as a whole. That is quite dangerous.
Sarah Bool
The Minister talks about the definition being narrow, but it would actually be quite broad. The amendment says that
“‘due regard’ means that specified bodies should think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors”.
That definition sets out a framework, but it is not so narrow and specified as to be problematic. On the Minister’s point, we already have problems enforcing the covenant across three areas; now we are going to 12. Even the armed forces personnel I have been speaking to have said that they have severe concerns about that. Local councils also raised that issue in the evidence sessions. While the Bill is very well intentioned, I worry that we are setting up councils to struggle, and that the postcode lottery will get even worse.
Al Carns
I disagree—the postcode lottery will get better and start to standardise over time. There is a multitude of problems with the covenant that the Bill will try to solve, one of which is education, and communication to our own armed forces personnel about what it is and what it is not. That is a problem for the Ministry of Defence, which we are taking forward.
A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice. I talked in my letter about flexibility, which is critical. Due regard is about informed decision making. It may involve training staff and putting mechanisms in place to ensure that decision making includes concise analysis of how decisions might impact members of the armed forces community.
Rachel Taylor
The Minister has been extremely generous with his time. I want to come back to this definition and whether it will help us, because what the Minister is saying is that we need to educate, inform and work with the champions in local authorities, rather than set up a system that litigates the meaning of “an appropriate amount of weight”. I fail to see how a definition that talks about an appropriate amount of weight is any more helpful for someone interpreting it than the phrase “due regard”, which, from a lot of evidence, is well understood by most of the people delivering on the armed forces covenant.
Al Carns
The public sector equality duty has been in force for 15 years and its duty of due regard is working well; we seek to replicate that as we move forward. From my perspective, the amendment risks constraining rather than strengthening that approach. As I have said many times, this is a step in the right direction. It broadens the policy areas covered by the covenant, which is a fantastic step and should be seen very positively across the armed forces, their families, our veteran community and the bereaved.
I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for amendment 5, which proposes a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to
“prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services”
for personnel and their families. While I recognise the importance of consistent and reliable access to public services for the armed forces community, again I respectfully cannot accept the amendment. A national protocol setting out standardised procedures and expectations could create a minimal level of requirement that organisations might seek to meet without going any further. It therefore risks unintentionally limiting the steps taken by those organisations to support the armed forces.
Al Carns
The minimum requirement at the moment is to stay in line with the covenant principles. That needs to be balanced with the broader local issues that each local authority is facing. That will never be standardised because our local communities are different, from Cornwall to the north-east, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is the harsh truth of the postcode lottery: the covenant will broaden out to a variety of policy areas but the way to solve its implementation is through communication and education, rather than tying ourselves up in bureaucracy and legislation.
Ian Roome
We heard in the Defence Committee that a lot of people currently serving in the armed forces have never even heard of the armed forces covenant; they do not know what it is. We are discussing how to educate the public, but a lot of people serving have never heard of the armed forces covenant. Does the Minister think that the education needs to start within the Ministry of Defence on how it handles the armed forces covenant?
Al Carns
I completely agree. I served for 24 years, and I did not know what the covenant was until I left and became the Minister for Veterans and People. That is the honest reality. I am sure that others who are serving also do not know what the covenant is. There is an educational requirement within the military, but also—I say this ever so gently—they are so focused on their operational roles and responsibilities that they are not necessarily interested in what comes next, or in understanding the benefits of the covenant to their families and loved ones while they are serving, which is a crying shame. I completely agree that we must make a more conscious effort to ensure that the covenant is understood by those serving, those who have left, and importantly—perhaps in some cases more so than for any other group—the families of veterans or of those serving. There is a huge amount of support out there, but it is often untapped because of the lack of education.
The legal duty is set up so that bodies can make decisions that are right for the local context and circumstances, including the devolved Governments. I would argue that a one-size-fits-all approach could inadvertently hinder tailored solutions that best meet the needs of armed forces personnel and their families. Instead, the covenant duty is supported by robust statutory guidance that acts as a clear point of reference for public bodies. Therefore, further expectations are unnecessary. This guidance ensures that the needs of the armed forces community are properly considered, while allowing for local discretion and responsiveness. Furthermore, transparency and accountability are maintained through the armed forces covenant annual report, which monitors progress and highlights areas for improvement.
In summary, mandating a national protocol risks imposing unnecessary rigidity and could limit the ability of public bodies to respond effectively to local circumstances—a point that I keep coming back to. We believe the current approach strikes the right balance between consistency, flexibility and accountability. I hope that reassures hon. Members, and I ask them not to press amendments 8 and 5.
David Reed
Given the strength of the argument this morning, I would like to test the will of the Committee and press amendment 8 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—
(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.
(2) The regulations must specify that the relevant health body must take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is appropriately transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “appropriately transferred” means—
(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.
(4) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—
(a) the transfer of patient records,
(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and
(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care as a consequence of the member of the armed forces on whom they are dependent’s military posting.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of plans for Special Educational Needs
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to a person who—
(a) is a parent serving in the Armed Forces, and
(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.
(2) The regulations shall specify that the plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to a person in subsection (1), in respect of their child or children, must be portable when responsibility for delivering that plan is transferred from one education body or local authority to another.
(3) The regulations made under subsection (1) shall provide that, if a service family are required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any plan for Special Educational Needs awarded to them or their child via their current education body or local authority shall remain equally valid, post-transfer, with the education body or local authority which covers the area of their new posting.
(4) Serving families covered by subsection (2) shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan in their new area with the relevant education body and local authority.
(5) In this section, “a plan for Special Educational Needs” means—
(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan,
(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan,
(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan,
(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”
This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.
Amendment 12, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—
(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,
(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and
(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.
(5) Service families in this position shall have an opportunity to re-negotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”
This amendment would allow serving families who are considering adopting or fostering a child to continue that process with no disadvantage if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one local authority area to another.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will confine my remarks to amendment 10, concerning the continuity of NHS secondary care services for the dependants of members of the armed forces. The amendment addresses an issue that has very real consequences for the health and wellbeing of service families, and therefore for the broader integrity of the commitment we make to those who have served and do serve.
At the heart of this amendment lies a simple maxim: those who serve their country, and the families who support them, should not be placed at a disadvantage when accessing essential public services as a result of the demands placed upon them by service life. That principle is, of course, recognised in the armed forces covenant; the question is whether we are giving full and consistent effect to it in practice.
The difficulty arises from a defining feature of military service: members of the armed forces are required to move. They are often asked to move frequently, often at short notice, sometimes across significant distances within the United Kingdom, and sometimes further afield. Those moves are not discretionary; they are intrinsic to the operational readiness and effective functioning of our armed forces. And when service personnel move, invariably their families move with them.
That reality carries with it a number of challenges, but one of the most pressing, and one that is too often overlooked, is the disruption to ongoing medical treatment for their dependants. While primary care is generally able to accommodate patient movement with relative ease, the same cannot be said for secondary care. Hospital treatment, specialist pathways and waiting lists are typically organised on a regional or trust basis. When a family crosses those organisational boundaries, continuity is not guaranteed.
The consequence, in too many cases, is that dependants find themselves required to re-enter the system. A child undergoing specialist treatment, a spouse awaiting elective surgery or a family member under the care of a consultant may be told that because they have moved into a new area, they must obtain a new referral, join a new waiting list and effectively begin the process again from the start.
It is important to be clear about what that represents—not a clinical judgment or a decision taken in the interests of patient care, but an administrative consequence of the way services are structured and commissioned across different parts of the NHS. It is in effect a failure of co-ordination. For the individuals concerned, however, it has a much more significant impact. It can mean delayed diagnoses, prolonged pain, deterioration in conditions that require timely intervention, and significant anxiety for families already managing the pressures of service life. It can also undermine confidence in the system and create a perception, justified or otherwise, that service families are being treated less favourably.
The amendment seeks to address that problem in a proportionate manner. It does not attempt to redesign the structure of the NHS—that would be a fool’s errand—nor does it impose a rigid requirement on how services should be delivered.
Rachel Taylor
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument; we can all relate to the specific problems that anyone faces when they move house, and that is far more likely for service personnel. However, requiring patients to retain waiting list positions regardless of clinical urgency surely risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need in order to ensure fairness and safety. Could he address that point?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Of course there will need to be a degree of clinical judgment, but the premise that somebody has to start at the bottom of the system by virtue of the fact that they are a dependant of service personnel is inherently unfair, and one that needs to be addressed in the Bill.
Mike Martin
Nobody wants a serviceperson or veteran to return to the back of the list. That would be completely contrary to what we are trying to do. Equally, if they were sixth on the list in the old area, we do not want them to be sixth in the new area. Is the hon. Member saying that their degree of clinical severity or urgency, or their triage category, would transfer such that they would slot into the new list at the same level?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address.
Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care.
Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose.
Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country.
It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary.
There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families.
Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential.
Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them.
In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system.
There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception.
It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. As he and the Committee know, there is a major reform of NHS England going on. At the ground level, it means that there will be far fewer integrated care boards. In Essex, we are going from three to one, and that approach is mirrored across the country. Is not my hon. Friend’s amendment therefore very timely, because—this should appeal to the Minister—we are trying to slim down NHS bureaucracy and give ICBs more power within the system? Would my hon. Friend’s proposal not tie in extremely well with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, which hold much of the budget within the NHS?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking.
Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them.
The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.
Rachel Taylor
Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they are somewhat problematic because they target health, education, adoption and fostering, which are all devolved to the respective Governments. They risk recklessly breaching our devolution conventions, including the Sewel convention. The purpose of the Bill is not to strain relationships with the devolved Governments; instead, it seeks to empower them to design the right solutions for each nation.
The covenant duty is intentionally flexible and is supported by guidance and existing frameworks. It allows each Government to design their response. I believe that this Government should seek to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on supporting our armed forces, rather than prescribing duties to them in legislation.
Furthermore, our NHS already works effectively with the covenant duty to support continuity. The amendments would risk governance and clinical risks. Instead, the Government are focusing on initiatives that aim to promote awareness of the armed forces community.
The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they will provide a far more practical and effective approach than is proposed in the amendment.
Mr Francois
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is leading for the Opposition on clause 2, I nevertheless want to make a particular point in relation to special educational needs and to adoption and fostering. I want to emphasise some issues related to educational aspects of the armed forces covenant. I shall therefore speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which relates to the continuity of special educational needs plans, and to amendment 12, tabled by the same Members, which relates to fostering and adoption.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee will be familiar from their constituency casework with the challenges presented by the special educational needs issue. I therefore rather hope they might have some sympathy with amendment 11, the essence of which is to allow serving families with a child who has been awarded an education, health and care plan, or its equivalent in the other nations of the United Kingdom, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move between bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area of the country to another.
In the modern parlance, I have been on a journey in relation to this issue, so let me explain briefly to the Committee why I feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, multiple parents have come to my constituency advice surgeries in connection with this issue. In a number of cases, they have been through what I admit is a bureaucratic assault course, sometimes lasting two years or longer, to establish an EHCP for their child or children. Having been through that gruelling experience, which can sometimes even involve attending an appeal hearing in front of a judge, they have often been confronted with the further challenge—even having won such a valuable document, which provides important additional support for their child—that they still cannot find a special needs place. Their child therefore has to be accommodated somehow in mainstream education, even if their condition is such that mainstream education is simply not appropriate in their case.
Mr Francois
I was hoping to approach this in a relatively non-partisan manner, but if the hon. Lady wants to mix it, I am happy to do so.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Francois
Let me just reply to the first intervention, and then I will be happy to take another. It is definitely true that there is a backlog in granting EHCPs in Essex, for a number of contractual reasons. To be fair to the county council, it now has a new contract and has invested heavily in catching up, but let me get back to the service personnel aspect.
Jayne Kirkham
I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Member is saying. We face this issue all over the country, particularly in Cornwall. However, he will be aware that the amendment may be out of date soon because the Government are introducing new SEN reforms that will introduce national standards, so hopefully it will no longer be needed.
Mr Francois
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. Having looked at the White Paper in a fair bit of detail, I have tried to incorporate how the system will change into what I am going to say. There is still a fundamental problem, however, which I hope I can explain to her satisfaction.
I have come to understand at least a bit about the complexities of the situation, including the important fact that some 99% of appeals to SEN tribunals for an EHCP to be granted are eventually approved anyway. That is a phenomenally high percentage. It struck me that the system was expending a tremendous amount of resource in trying to exercise the judgment of Solomon as to whether child A was marginally more entitled to a scarce SEN school place than child B. That can apply to the children of service personnel as well. It therefore seemed to me, after some years of experience, that the only way to cut the Gordian knot was to increase the supply of special needs education. With all the SEN schools in south Essex already heavily oversubscribed, that meant creating a new special needs school from scratch. I spent three years trying to do exactly that.
I am delighted to tell the Committee that Wolsey Park school, the first ever SEN school in the Rochford district, is now under construction and will hopefully open in the spring of next year for 150 children with severe or profound learning difficulties—the most challenging SEN cases—in Rayleigh. There will also be an annexe with a further 100 places on the former Chetwood primary school site in South Woodham Ferrers. The school will be called Wolsey Park, although light-heartedly I thought “Francois academy” had a certain ring to it. Others, unfortunately, disagreed. It should provide high-quality education for those very special children.
As a result of that process, I have been on an educational journey that has taught me quite a lot about the complexities and challenges of the whole area, which of course also applies to service personnel who have a child, or in some cases children, with special educational needs. I know that this can sometimes be an emotive subject, not least for parents, but I hope I can convince the Committee that what I am attempting to do is not any kind of partisan initiative, but will hopefully be to the benefit of all service personnel and their families in this category.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth raised the new White Paper. In February 2026, the Government published a long-awaited White Paper on this subject, “Every child achieving and thriving”. There are a number of positive suggestions in that document, and I should like to touch on them, as they potentially affect armed forces personnel.
According to the latest estimates, by which I mean the gov.uk statistics concerning SEN and EHCP provision in England for the academic year 2024-25, there are 482,640 children with an education, health and care plan in England. Obviously, the number increases when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included in the total; they have different names for the document, but they are essentially quite similar.
The definition of special educational needs, which is included in the SEND code of practice for England, is brief and very clear:
“A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.”
At present, that provision, whether it is in a mainstream educational setting or a dedicated SEN school, is often supported in the most challenging cases by an EHCP. The White Paper estimates that around 5.3% of children in England, or just over one in 20, currently qualify for an EHCP. Although I have not seen specific statistics relating to the military community, it seems logical that the proportion is unlikely to be lower, so at least one in 20 service children, and perhaps even more, qualify for an EHCP.
One of the challenges of dealing with SEN children—this point relates directly to amendment 11—is that providing the additional support they require is often relatively resource-intensive. Local education authorities are therefore often reluctant to speedily grant EHCPs because of the financial pressure that it adds to their budgets, even though 99% of those cases tend to be settled in favour of the parents and the child concerned anyway, sometimes after a gruelling and time-consuming appeal process.
Because of the funding pressures placed on local authorities by the growing demand for SEN support and for EHCPs in particular, several years ago the then Conservative Government introduced what was known as the statutory override for local authority budgets. In essence, it meant that although local authorities are required by law to set a balanced budget each year—would that central Government had to live by such discipline!—the one exception whereby they are allowed to run a deficit deliberately is the case of costs arising from SEN education.
As we have local elections approaching, it is fair to say—without being partisan or going into the cases of individual councils—that rising SEN costs have placed a number of local authorities that are also local education authorities, such as county councils or metropolitan or London boroughs, under considerable financial strain in recent years. As a result, under the Conservative Government, the statutory override that was introduced in March 2020 and was initially meant to run until March 2023 was extended to the end of March 2026.
Now I am about to give this Labour Government some credit. The question of what would happen when the statutory override ran out is obviously still pertinent. In June 2025, they announced that the statutory override would stay in place until the end of the financial year 2027-28—so they extended it. Moreover, in autumn 2025, the Treasury announced that the Government would absorb the cost of the statutory override through central budgets—in other words, via general taxation—once the override expires in 2028.
As the Library briefing notes on this subject point out:
“Future funding implications will be managed within the overall government DEL envelope, such that the government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds, once the Statutory Override ends at the end of 2027-28.”
In February this year—last month—the Government further announced that they would be writing off 90% of councils’ historic SEND-related deficits, at least up to the year 2025-26. All of that is very costly in terms of general taxation, and I have yet to see a comprehensive estimate of exactly how it will be paid for, but the Committee might feel that, in these very particular and emotive cases, the money is none the less well spent.
Jayne Kirkham
Looking at amendment 11’s proposed new section 343AZC of the 2006 Act, I am not sure whether there may be a drafting error. EHCPs are normally given to the child, not the parent, and the proposed new section is drafted as if the plan will be awarded to the parent.
Mr Francois
I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but in effect the EHCP relates to the child, and the parents have to fight the system to get it. I am very happy to take her advice on board if I bring the amendment back on Report.
Nevertheless—this is why I have placed an emphasis on budgets—the cost of SEN still places a significant in-year pressure on local authorities that are trying to set realistic budgets. Of course, there is the related issue that many Committee members will be familiar with—the cost of home-to-school transport for SEN children, some of whom are driven from home to school, in some cases over quite long distances, often effectively in taxis provided by the local authority.
Amendment 11 relates specifically to the portability of EHCPs, but it is important to understand that in the February 2026 White Paper, the Government delineated three tiers of SEN support, which I will briefly summarise. The first or lower tier is targeted support. That is defined as providing targeted support in the child’s education setting, which is set out in an individual support plan—an ISP, as opposed to an EHCP. That could include small group interventions to develop language skills or pre-teaching key vocabulary to help access the curriculum.
The second tier is targeted plus, through which support from the setting will have input from education and health professionals, and may include access to a support base. That will involve time-limited support in an alternative provision or specialist setting.
The third and highest tier is specialist support, where support is provided through an EHCP, whether in a mainstream or specialist setting. It may also be provided through a specialist base at this level. Once reforms are completed, EHCPs will be provided only at this level of support. In other words, they will be more difficult to get. According to the White Paper, these layers will be guided by national inclusion standards to be developed in the coming years, which will set out what the layers should look like in practice. Again, as so often, we await further Government guidance.
I have deliberately gone into this level of detail because, at the moment, the amendment is drafted only to include EHCPs. To be clear, it is my intention today to deal with this effectively as a probing amendment to promote debate. Depending on the Committee’s reaction, I would like to bring back a refined amendment for discussion in Committee of the whole House or on Report. I am signalling in advance that I might withdraw the amendment today and tweak it to bring in those other levels of support.
Rachel Taylor
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I invite him to submit his speech to the consultation on the Government’s White Paper on special educational needs. If he is going to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would consider that, and then we could move on.
Mr Francois
Having been a Member of Parliament for 25 years in June, I have learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I say that in the nicest possible way, so I will take the hint, and having gone to the trouble of writing the speech, I will definitely submit it.
To continue, if a service family were based at Tidworth and, perhaps after some considerable time, had secured an EHCP from Wiltshire as the local education authority, but were then posted to Catterick, they would potentially have to go through the process all over again in Yorkshire. It could be another two years of agony to get back to where they already were before they moved.
As the Minister pointed out in his helpful letter to the Committee of 9 March, the Department for Education has produced—here is that word again—“guidelines” that should help facilitate the passporting, in effect, of EHCPs from one military garrison or equivalent airbase or naval base to another in a different LEA area, so there is already a process in place to do that. The problem, however, is that those guidelines are facilitative rather than mandatory. In other words, if the receiving LEA—in Yorkshire, in our example—was already under serious financial pressure and already had delays in its system for granting EHCPs, it is possible that, despite the armed forces covenant, the receiving LEA might yet be unreasonable and still force the service family to go back to square one and start all over again. Without taking the Committee for granted in any way, I strongly suspect that Members from all parties would find that situation highly undesirable.
Mr Foster
Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is making my point for me. In the civilian context they might not be ordered to move, but in a military context their whole unit might move, so they do not have a choice. If they are going to follow the drum—follow the flag—they have to go from Tidworth to Catterick. If, therefore, the LEA covering Catterick were difficult about it, they would have to start the journey all over again. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” report, I spoke to a number of service personnel, so we had anecdotal evidence, although I am afraid not a league table. We certainly spoke to people who were contemplating leaving the military because they were in exactly that situation and simply could not face the challenge of having to move and start all over again. They would rather leave the service of the Crown and keep the bird in the hand—for want of a better phrase—staying with the EHCP that they had, than move to a new location, roll the dice and start all over again. That is the fundamental difference.
An absolute principle of the covenant—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble rightly elucidated—is that service personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their military service. This is a very specific example of where they do, and we called the report “Stick or Twist?” because, in this case, that is the dilemma that they would face. I have done my best, I hope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will try to move towards a conclusion without trying your patience, Mr Efford.
In essence, amendment 11 seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to produce guidelines within six months such that the receiving authority must accept that transfer as legitimate and seek to passport across whatever benefits were provided for in the EHCP, or in the national equivalent in the devolved Administrations. On a point of detail, as an EHCP usually includes a named school for that child to go to, whether mainstream or specialist, the service family should also be given a reasonable period of time in order to help negotiate and select a named school in the receiving area, ideally before their posting comes into effect, so that the child could, as it were, know their fate and begin to establish links in the new school. I hope Committee members appreciate that for children with certain SEN conditions, moving educational settings can be a disturbing experience. That is why I put that provision into the amendment.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for having gone into considerable detail about all this, but special educational needs is perforce a rather complicated subject. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee can understand what I and my hon. Friends seek to achieve here, and I hope that we might somehow be able to co-opt the Committee on a cross-party basis to bring it through. The spirit is simple: one of the key principles of the armed forces covenant is that service personnel should suffer no disadvantage relative to their civilian counterparts by virtue of their service, and I believe that that should apply equally in the field of special needs education as elsewhere.
Having presented my case, and so as not to try the Committee’s patience, I genuinely look forward to hearing other members of the Committee, especially the Minister when he sums up, and their views of amendment 11. I shall not discuss amendment 12 now, but will let someone else have a go. Perhaps, Mr Efford, you will call me to speak briefly to that amendment later. Other than that, I rest my case.
Mr Francois
I did not want to push my luck, but briefly, amendment 12 is similar in spirit and relates to portability and adoption. In this instance, I want to raise a specific case of two serving officers. They asked not to be identified, but perhaps the Minister will take my word that it is a genuine case; if he wants me to provide the details privately afterwards, I am happy to do so.
This married couple, both serving majors based at Shrivenham, have been looking to adopt. They are both due to be posted to PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters —in Northwood at the conclusion of their course, in under six months. They reached out to their future local authority to start the adoption process, but they were told that they could not start the process unless they had been living in that local authority area for at least a year. Also, they would have to commit to staying in the new local authority area for a minimum of two to three years after they had adopted—a potential total of more than five years. That is clearly not feasible for a military family, used to two-year posting cycles.
Our amendment 12 would therefore simply give military families the same rights as civilian families, who do not have to move wherever the nation needs them. It is very similar in essence to the point about EHCPs, but representations have been made to me by that family and others, so I undertook to draft a parallel amendment that specifically covers fostering and adoption. I hope the Committee can understand the spirit of what I am trying to achieve. With that, I rest my case.
Al Carns
I begin by addressing amendment 10. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and for raising the important issue of continuity of NHS secondary care for armed forces families. Although the amendment is well-intentioned, the Government cannot support it, for a relatively simple reason.
Healthcare, education, adoption and fostering arrangements are devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment risks overstepping devolved powers, and could breach the Sewel convention by imposing UK-wide operational requirements from Westminster, potentially straining relationships within the devolved Governments. It is counterintuitive.
The amendment also raises significant concerns about clinical prioritisation and patient safety. Requiring patients to retain waiting-list positions regardless of clinical urgency risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need, ensuring fairness and safety. Similarly, transferring care without appropriate referral processes could undermine clinical governance, particularly given variations in treatment pathways and IT systems across NHS regions. For a long time, we have known that that creates a set of complexities that is difficult to navigate.
The armed forces covenant already provides a strong, flexible framework for addressing those challenges. The NHS has embedded the covenant principles into its constitution. It delivers bespoke pathways for the armed forces community, such as Op Restore and Op Courage, and it has a central armed forces commissioning team, which works to retain NHS waiting-list positions where clinically appropriate. I have met them, and they are exceptionally proficient at what they do.
In addition, existing programmes and ongoing electronic record integration already address many of the challenges associated with frequent moves and continuity of care, without the need for additional statutory requirements. A clear example of that collaborative approach is the work that is under way with the devolved Administrations. Wales and Scotland have today confirmed that following the cross-border work that has been led by the Government, they are actively considering updating their policies to better reflect cross-border arrangements and the maintenance of waiting times.
The current approach is based on close co-operation between the MOD, NHS, devolved Governments and local health bodies, supported by the armed forces covenant duty, rather than by rigid primary legislation. That allows for locally tailored solutions that respect clinical priorities and patient safety and avoid unintended consequences, such as disruption and delay. Extensive consultation and co-operation with devolved Administrations and stakeholders is essential to maintaining effective healthcare provision, and that could be undermined by prescriptive regulation and unrealistic deadlines. The objectives of the amendment are therefore largely met through existing statutory guidance and NHS policies, which provide a more flexible and effective framework for supporting armed forces families.
Generally, the difficulties and complexity of triaging patients across devolved Governments, different NHS trusts and secondary care are not lost on me. Separately from discussing the amendment, I would welcome a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People about how we can continue to improve the existing process. I understand the positive and forward-looking intent behind the amendment.
Amendment 11 seeks to mandate the transfer of special educational needs plans between the devolved Governments. While well-meaning, that approach is unlikely to work in practice. Each nation operates a distinct statutory system for identifying need, assessing children and delivering support. Imposing a legal requirement for portability across those frameworks risks creating delay, duplication and additional bureaucracy for some families.
The more effective route is continued joint working with bodies in scope, building on the existing protections that are already provided by the covenant. The duty requires public bodies to consider the specific impacts of service mobility, including for children with SEND, and to ensure that support remains responsive as families move.
The Government are already taking significant steps in this space. The Department for Education is consulting on SEND reforms that explicitly recognise the challenges faced by service children. A central part of this work is developing digital, streamlined plans that can be easily transferred, reducing delays during moves.
In England, local authorities already have a statutory duty to manage and transfer education, health and care plans when a child moves between areas. The Ministry of Defence has been fully engaged with the Department for Education’s consultation on SEND reform, highlighting the importance of minimising disruption to service personnel and families and ensuring quicker access to support in new locations. Reforms under consideration by this Government include digital EHCPs and individual support plans, which go a long way towards sorting out some of the bureaucracy, and are designed to support smoother transitions for highly mobile children. The MOD is also working with the Department for Education on the Best Start in Life programme and family hubs, providing integrated, accessible support from pregnancy onwards. Guidance to help the hubs to support service families effectively is expected this spring.
Mr Francois
I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument. I understand what he is saying, but if Corporal Tommy Atkins, his wife and their special needs child in Wiltshire are posted to Edinburgh castle, Fort George, Leuchars or wherever in Scotland, that is not their fault. The amendment would help to reduce bureaucracy by requiring the receiving LEA to take the EHCP. The fact that it was created in England does not mean that it should not be valid in Scotland. The currency we use is valid in both nations, so I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument—and either way, it does not help the service personnel or the child much, does it?
Al Carns
We continue to discuss with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales how best to enhance the cross-pollination of EHCPs and individual support plans. We will continue to do so and, in particular, will try to speed up the transition and make it smoother for highly mobile children.
To legislate in the way the shadow Minister suggests, when a White Paper is already out and changes in legislation are coming, could result in the incorrect solution for armed forces families. What I would recommend is a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People to update the right hon. Member in full and ensure that any ideas or insights that he has are pulled into that work, so that we come up with the best collaborative solution. The Government’s preferred approach is collaboration within existing frameworks, underpinned by the covenant duty, which will deliver the practical benefits without the unintended consequences.
Amendment 12, which seeks to continue adoption and fostering arrangements automatically across local authority boundaries, would raise significant practical difficulties. Each local authority operates with its own procedures, safeguarding requirements and legal frameworks. A single, one-size-fits-all statutory requirement risks creating confusion, administrative burden and potential delays, which is precisely the kind of disruption that the amendment seeks to avoid.
The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing civilian frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they provide a far more practical and effective approach than the amendment process.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised a specific case. I am more than happy to take it offline. If we can help directly where the system has not worked, or help with the process, I will pass it on to the Minister for Veterans and People, and we will get after that problem set.
The covenant’s statutory guidance provides a flexible and practical framework that respects local authority responsibilities while directly addressing the challenges faced by service families. It ensures that individual circumstances can be properly considered without imposing rigid requirements that may not fit every complex case.
For those reasons, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and duplicative. We remain fully committed to supporting healthcare needs for armed forces families, improving SEN provision and ensuring robust support for those involved in adoption and fostering. We will continue to work collaboratively with delivery partners and improve guidance where needed, rather than impose inflexible statutory mandates that risk unintended consequences. I hope that that provides reassurance. I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 10, 11 or 12.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his broad support for the intent of my amendment, if not for its practical workings. I am grateful for the invitation to meet him and his ministerial colleague to see how we can reach a settlement to ensure equality for armed forces personnel on this issue. On the basis of his reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. I was not calling the shadow Minister to make a speech; I was just asking whether he would press amendment 11.
Mr Francois
No, Mr Efford, and I was just going to say why not. I tipped my hand earlier and said that I probably would not press it. I will accept the Minister’s kind offer of a meeting to discuss the issues in amendments 11 and 12. I hope I have managed to convince the Committee that I have done my homework, if nothing else. I will not press either amendment.
David Reed
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“343AZC Armed Forces Covenant Action Plans
(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a local authority to which the Armed Forces Covenant duty applies to prepare and publish an Armed Forces Action Plan.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify that an Armed Forces Action Plan set out—
(a) the steps the authority intends to take to fulfil its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant,
(b) how the authority will assess local need within the Armed Forces community, and
(c) how resources will be allocated to support delivery of those duties.
(3) A relevant local authority must, at least once in each reporting period, publish a report on progress made against its action plan.
(4) In preparing an action plan and report under this section, a relevant local authority must have regard to any guidance or outcomes issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance, including indicative outcomes or measures, for the purposes of supporting consistent implementation and assessment of the Armed Forces Covenant duty.”
This amendment would require local authorities subject to the Covenant duty to prepare and publish an Action Plan setting out how they will deliver the duty.
The amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would place a clear and consistent obligation on local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan. At present, there is no standardised mechanism for assessing how local authorities are delivering their covenant duties, nor is there a consistent framework for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery in practice. The absence of such a structure makes it difficult to form a clear picture of how the covenant is being implemented across the country. Without a defined framework, delivery is likely to vary among authorities, a point that has been raised today in relation to other amendments.
Some local authorities, particularly those with an established focus on armed forces issues, may continue to provide strong and proactive support. They may already have effective partnerships in place with local services charities, good engagement with their armed forces communities, and a clear understanding of local need. In some areas, local authorities are already producing plans or strategies, often working closely with the local armed forces network and charities. The amendment would build on that existing good practice, rather than starting from scratch.
Other authorities, facing a wide range of competing pressures, may find it more difficult to give their covenant commitments the same level of attention. That is not necessarily due to a lack of willingness; rather, it reflects the reality of limited capacity and competing priorities.
The result can be a variation in provision across different areas, whereby the consistency of available support may depend in part on where an individual lives. That sits uneasily with the intention behind the armed forces covenant, which is to provide a consistent commitment to those who serve or have served and to their families. The amendment is intended to support the duty by helping to ensure that the covenant is delivered in a more consistent and transparent way at a local level.
In practical terms, the absence of a structured approach presents some challenges. First, it can limit the ability of local authorities to assess the scale and nature of their armed forces community. Without a clear expectation that information will be gathered and analysed, there is a risk that need will not be fully identified. That may relate to housing, access to healthcare, employment support or the specific needs of service families who move frequently. It may also include the needs of veterans who are less visible and are therefore less likely to come into contact with services unless there is a proactive effort to reach them. If need is not clearly understood, it becomes more difficult to design services that respond effectively.
Secondly, without a clear planning framework, resource allocations can become less strategic. Decisions may be taken on a reactive basis, responding to immediate issues as they arise rather than being guided by a longer-term assessment of the need. Given the financial pressures facing local authorities, that is understandable. However, it increases the risk that covenant-related activity will not be prioritised consistently, particularly when it is not clearly set out alongside other statutory responsibilities. A more structured approach would allow better co-ordination of support between services, including housing, healthcare and employment support, where needs often overlap and require a joined-up response.
Thirdly, the absence of a requirement to set priorities or to publish reports on progress makes it harder to assess how covenant duties are being delivered in practice. It becomes more difficult for central Government to understand what is happening at a local level; it is also more difficult for local stakeholders, including service charities and armed forces families, to see what support is available and how it is being developed. Those issues were reflected in earlier evidence sessions, in which concerns were raised about the lack of consistent metrics and the difficulty of comparing delivery between authorities.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he not consider one advantage of these action plans to be shared learning across local authorities, as those with more experience can aid those with less experience in improving the standard and delivery of support for veterans and the armed forces community?
David Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Looking across the Committee, I see Members who have served in local government, some of whom may have had military experience before doing so. They would have been able to apply their experience, and that of their families, to their work as elected councillors. However, that is not standard across the country, which takes us back to my central point: given the financial pressures and other statutory pressures, we can see why, without a requirement for a clear plan, implementation becomes difficult for a local authority that does not have experience.
The lack of comparability limits our ability to identify where approaches are working well and where improvements may be needed. It also makes it harder to share learning among areas. Amendment 13 seeks to address those points in a proportionate and practical way. It would not impose a detailed or overly prescriptive model, as it is not bureaucratic in nature, and it would not remove flexibility from local authorities; authorities that want to do a lot more could do so, which would perhaps be fed back into central Government. Instead, it would establish a clear expectation that each authority take a structured approach to delivering its covenant responsibilities.
It is important to be clear about what the amendment would not do. It would not impose a complex or resource-intensive new burden. Many local authorities are already undertaking elements of this work; the amendment would simply bring that activity into a clearer and more consistent framework. It would require local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan, which I am sure would be developed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, bringing together experience from where it is being done well in local government. That plan would set out in clear terms the steps that the authority intends to take to meet its obligations. It would provide a more coherent framework for delivery, bringing together activity that might otherwise be spread across different services.
Importantly, amendment 13 would also require authorities to assess the level and nature of the need within their local armed forces community. This key element would ensure that planning is informed by evidence, rather than assumptions. It would also encourage engagement with those directly affected, including service personnel, veterans and their families, as well as the organisations that support them. In addition, the amendment would require authorities to set out how resources would be allocated to meet that identified need, helping to create a clearer link between assessment and delivery. It would support more transparent decision making and would help to ensure that commitments are reflected in practice.
The requirement to report on progress is another important part of the amendment. It would introduce greater transparency, allowing central Government, local partners and the armed forces community to understand how the covenant is being delivered in particular areas. That transparency would support activity and accountability; allow local authorities to demonstrate the work that they are undertaking, including where progress has been made and where further development is needed; and provide a basis for identifying effective approaches and sharing good practice.
I will wrap up, because I am conscious of time. Amendment 13 is an important amendment. It would give local authorities a framework to work with central Government to carry out their new statutory duties, while managing their workload across competing priorities.
Al Carns
Amendment 13 would require local authorities to prepare and publish detailed action plans within six months of the passing of the Act. The Government are fully committed to strengthening the delivery of the covenant at a local level. The Bill represents a significant step forward by placing the duty on an improved statutory footing, extending the policy areas that are in scope from three to 12.
Mandating detailed action plans risks imposing a rigid bureaucratic process that may not reflect the diverse circumstances of local government, geography or the composition of armed forces communities across the country. For example, mandating an action plan for areas with little to no armed forces footprint could divert valuable resources away from practical support and into compliance activity.
Delivery of the covenant at a local level is already supported through established mechanisms, including the Covenant Community Action Group, the annual covenant conference and a dedicated covenant website that promotes good practice, shared learning and engagement across the system, which are areas that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East mentioned. We are also investing in improved awareness and understanding of the covenant across both the armed forces and service providers, including through the new regional Valour centres and field officers.
Rather than mandating prescriptive local action plans, we are taking a proportionate and flexible approach, supporting bodies in scope with extensive guidance and practical tools aimed at improving outcomes for the armed forces community. My officials are creating a suite of materials for service providers to give clear guidance and practical support. The Valour regional officers will be able to provide tailored advice at a local level up and down the United Kingdom.
Al Carns
That is a really good question. I will come back to the Committee with the exact detail, but lots of councils have engaged and have gold, silver and bronze standards. Some of them are exceptional. Some of them—this goes back to the point about the postcode lottery—do not necessarily need to sign up, because their community does not have a huge number of veterans or armed forces. I will endeavour to come back to the Committee with the detail.
There is already an established statutory duty to report to Parliament on the delivery of the covenant. There is therefore no need to establish a new reporting mechanism. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is welcome to come and have a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People and me about what that report looks like so that we can move it in the right direction. However, we believe that a proportionate, flexible approach, supported by guidance and ongoing engagement, is the best way to ensure that local authorities deliver meaningful support to the armed forces community without unnecessary administrative burdens.
I hope I have clarified the situation, reassured the Committee and offered up a brief for the Minister for Veterans and People and me on the annual report and what it consists of. I ask the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East to withdraw amendment 13.
David Reed
I thank the Minister for his wind-up. In the light of his answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—
‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.
(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.
(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.
(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.’”
This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.
New clause 6—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—
“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—
‘366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).
(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.
(3) The Commissioner shall, amongst others, perform the following functions—
(a) promote the interests of veterans in England;
(b) monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;
(c) review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;
(d) identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;
(e) make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.
(4) In exercising these functions the Commissioner may—
(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;
(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;
(c) publish reports and recommendations.
(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.
(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.
(7) The Secretary of State shall lay any report prepared under this section before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) the provision of such staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions;
(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports.
(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for a further term.
(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of—
(a) incapacity,
(b) misbehaviour, or
(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.
(11) In this section—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;
“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.’”
This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank everyone for our progressive and balanced debates so far.
I am delighted to introduce clause 2, which extends the armed forces covenant legal duty, delivering a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces. The clause will amend part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting two new sections that will extend the statutory duty to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant. They will do so by applying the duty to public bodies across the UK and additional policy areas, as I shall explain.
Proposed new section 343AZA introduces the principles of the armed forces covenant. It states that bodies subject to the duty must have due regard to the unique obligations of, and the sacrifices made by, members of our armed forces. Those principles include the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantage faced by servicepeople as a result of their current or former service, and the principle that in some cases special provisions may be justified for the armed forces community because of the impact of their service.
Proposed new section 343AZB will impose the duty on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies across the United Kingdom. For the first time, in recognition of the breadth of the covenant, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and UK Government Departments will be subject to the duty. It applies when those bodies exercise public functions in relation to the following matters: childcare, education and training, employment, health and social care, housing, social security benefits, personal taxation, criminal justice, transport, pensions, immigration and citizenship, and armed forces compensation.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. New clause 6 would introduce a veterans commissioner for England. We have three excellent veterans commissioners —the commissioners for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales—but they represent just 15% of veterans living in the UK. Some 85% of veterans live in England, yet there is no equivalent dedicated commissioner. As Members will recall, when the Minister asked at our evidence session on 25 February whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England, the three commissioners all expressed their support for such an appointment.
This is not a new campaign or issue. On 1 May 2024, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion, which included a petition that received 1,400 signatures, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs under the last Conservative Government said that it would appoint a national veterans commissioner. It started recruiting for the role, and the job advert stated:
“This role will cover England and any veterans matters which are reserved to the UK Government and are not in the remit of the Devolved Administrations.”
At the time, the RBL was delighted that England would have the same key public role of an independent advocate and voice for the armed forces community as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have had veterans commissioners since 2014, 2020 and 2022 respectively.
The national veterans commissioner was intended to replace the Government’s independent veterans adviser. The IVA was a UK-wide advisory role with informal influence; the national veterans commissioner, by contrast, was to be a public commissioner with formal oversight and scrutiny, looking at England and UK-wide reserved matters to improve veteran support and accountability. However, the post has never been filled.
Following the general election in July 2024, the new Labour Government moved the Office for Veterans’ Affairs from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. The Prime Minister explained in a written statement that the change would
“enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life; from training to veterans working with all government departments to deliver for our service personnel.”
In February 2025, at Defence questions, I asked the then Minister for Veterans and People whether he planned to appoint a veterans commissioner for England. His response was:
“I reassure the hon. Member that I work closely with my Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish commissioners. We are currently looking at the structures by which we support veterans across the whole tapestry of the United Kingdom, and we really want to put in place an institutional resilience system that gives the best care at the right time and in the right place to the right people. That primarily involves working with thousands of charities collaboratively and coherently to ensure that we can get the best bang for our buck from all the amazing volunteers and charitable services out there. A bigger review is going on. It is on hold at the moment, and we will let the House know more in due course.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 16.]
However, the new veterans strategy published in November 2025 made no reference or commitment to the creation of such a role.
I appreciate that Op Valour is ongoing. It was announced last year and was described as the first ever UK-wide, Government-led approach to veterans support. It is said that the programme, backed by £50 million of funding, will deliver easier access to care and support for our veterans, connecting housing, employment and health services across the UK. It has three parts: Valour-recognised support centres, Valour field officers and the Valour HQ. However, it does not provide the single point of overarching advocacy that a commissioner would provide. Neither would the Armed Forces Commissioner, which was established in legislation in 2025. I note that there has still not been an official announcement, nearly a year after the application deadline closed, of who that will be, but perhaps the Minister can provide an update.
The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be abolished, with its functions and responsibilities transferred to the newly established commissioner. A veteran would fall under the commissioner’s remit only where their complaint relates to their time in service when they were subject to civil law. There are time limits for submitting a complaint; only those veterans who recently left the armed forces will generally fall within the provision.
New clause 6 proposes that a veterans commissioner for England be appointed within 12 months of the passing of the Act. We have used the word “appoint”, because this is not a statutory role but a public appointment. That would mirror the position for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which all have non-statutory commissioners. I note that the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, while technically non-statutory, operates much closer to the statutory model than those in Wales or Northern Ireland. It is treated like an arm’s length public body, with a defined budget, a permanent staff, a published governance framework and annual reporting requirements. Although that is not the exact model proposed here, perhaps it is one that the Minister might consider.
Proposed new section 366A(3) sets out the commissioner’s core functions, which are to
“promote the interests of veterans in England…monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England…review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families…identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services…make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.”
In doing so, the commissioner may
“carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans …consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations…publish reports and recommendations.”
Given the proposed extension of the armed forces covenant, and the issues and concerns that many people have, the oversight role of a commissioner is vital. To date, as the local government representatives indicated to us, the covenant has been delivered through enthusiasm, but we now need robust implementation.
Any report prepared by the veterans commissioner would be laid before Parliament. The role would operate for three years at a time, with a further chance to be reappointed.
I believe that all members of the Committee understand the value of a veterans commissioner for England. As the existing commissioners are calling for it, I implore everyone to consider carefully how vital it will be.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to new clause 6, which seeks to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England.
Although the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has raised important issues about the needs of our veterans, it appears that the role of the national veterans commissioner for England would duplicate the role of the armed forces covenant. The covenant ensures that we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, the economy and the society that they serve with their lives. It fulfils that role, alongside Op Valour and the armed forces champions. The Government are also investing in improving awareness and understanding of the covenant across the armed forces and service providers. In combination, those things alleviate the need for a national veterans commissioner.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure, after lunch, to continue serving under your chairship, Mr Efford. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, but I suppose the best way to be funny is to be unintentionally funny.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which would legislate for the establishment of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. I will come to some statistics later, but I think everyone in this room understands that veterans’ mental health is poor. That does not apply to all veterans, of course—many veterans, including the Minister and many Members in this room, take great agency from their service, so I do not wish to paint veterans as victims—but there are veterans who suffer with mental health challenges. Those challenges often start in service, whether they arise through the pressures of service, the vagaries of service life or the trauma experienced in combat.
Under the new clause, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State, would essentially have a remit to oversee the care offered to veterans across the nation. It is doubly important that we seek, as we did this morning, not just to regularise and establish parity of care for veterans across the entire country, but to understand that people with mental health problems often find it hard to reach out. It is easier to forget people with mental health problems, which is why the establishment of the position is particularly important.
I will touch a little on my own experiences. I spent a couple of years in southern Afghanistan, including some periods in combat. I was lucky enough not to experience extreme trauma. Naturally, you do see some things in combat, but that was not my problem when I came back from Afghanistan. What I experienced was a deep sense of frustration and anger at what was effectively a failed mission. I know that some people in this room, including the Minister, served in Afghanistan. We were sent there to do the sharp end of Government policy. We do so willingly, of course—that is what we sign up for—but that policy was ill thought out and often put servicepeople in very difficult positions in which they had to make judgments in extremely grey areas. If the strategy had been slightly more clearly thought out, perhaps some of us who were there might not have experienced that moral injury.
Moral injury, which is actually a term that came out of the conflict in Afghanistan, happens where what you hear about the conflict is very different from what you experience on the ground, and the decisions that you have to make are very discordant. It is a bit separate from the “classic” trauma that we might understand as PTSD, but all these things come to the same. Personally, I wrote books, articles and pamphlets, which was my way of achieving catharsis and balance. I donated the proceeds of my first book to Combat Stress, a charity that supports the mental health of veterans and servicepeople.
I emphasise that many veterans, myself included, take great agency from their service and the qualities and skills that it taught them, but there is a significant minority of veterans who struggle with their mental health, and that journey starts when they are in service. Between 2019 and 2023, mental health diagnoses among active duty personnel increased by 40%. Anxiety and PTSD diagnoses doubled. Those are stark figures. In 2023, mental health disorders accounted for more days in hospital beds for service personnel than physical problems. There is a preponderance of mental health injuries over physical health injuries among our service personnel. Women under 30 in the military are more than twice as likely as civilians to report divorce. We can see the burden on our service personnel.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an extremely powerful speech. I pay tribute to his service. When I was the Veterans Minister a decade ago, I looked at the issue. One thing that we looked at closely was the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that some veterans leave in very good mental shape—they have an exit medical and they are fine—but a few years later there can be a trigger event, such as the sudden death of a parent, and suddenly all the suppressed anxieties and difficulties seen in combat can come out very quickly. That person can deteriorate extremely fast. Is the hon. Gentleman’s proposed appointment partly intended to address that problem?
Mike Martin
The shadow Minister is exactly right. We have used a few metaphors today, including that of mental health as a journey. Another metaphor is that mental health is a garden that has to be tended. Each of us has a responsibility to introspect and check in with ourselves to see how we are doing, but the garden also needs to be tended by gardeners. The oversight position in new clause 2 is the chief gardener, if you like.
We have all heard stories in our constituency casework about how mental health services are being pared to the bone. By offering reports to Parliament, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer would be able to illustrate some of the particular problems that veterans who suffer with mental health problems have. They would report to Parliament and illustrate the problems in a way that would enable Parliament to adequately oversee the issue and make sure that our veterans are cared for.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I completely agree with everything the hon. Member says about the need for robust mental and physical health support for veterans, and I bow to his personal experience on the matter. Does he agree that, through Operation Courage, we are providing specialist NHS-based mental health support to veterans, and, through Operation Restore, we are providing additional physical health support? It is my understanding that, to date, up to 36,000 veterans have been supported by those two initiatives.
Mike Martin
I agree with the hon. Lady. In the spirit of cross-party working, I say that we all support our veterans, and I think that the strides that the Government have made are fantastic. The previous Government had a Minister who was passionate about this issue, and he also made strides in this area. We are all trying to move in the same direction; it is not either/or. We have used the phrase “postcode lottery”. We all accept that veterans or people with mental health injuries do not reach out—often people who are depressed or anxious retreat inside themselves—so it is a good thing to have somebody who is able to survey veterans, understand their concerns and see how well linked they are to the fantastic mental health services that are being rolled out by the Government.
Let me highlight a couple of statistics about veterans. Suicide rates are four times higher for veterans under the age of 25 than for the same group in the civilian population, and 52% of veterans have had a mental health problem compared with 45% in the general population. On the point about belonging that I mentioned, a third of veterans reported feeling loneliness compared with just 7% of the civilian population. Veterans experience PTSD at twice the rate of the civilian population. We do not have any figures for the moral injury concept that I spoke about because it is hard to define and band.
The particular case of veterans and mental health is a well-recognised problem—we do not need to over-make the case; we understand it. Veterans often do not reach out when they have mental health issues, so there is a case for a sort-of chief gardener to help us make sure that we all tend the garden of our mental health.
Al Carns
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on clause 2 and the new clauses. They are based on the right intent, and Members are trying to do the best by our serving and ex-serving population.
I will leave the script and step back to look at where we have come on this journey. Under the previous Government, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs sat outside the Ministry of Defence. I sort of understand why that happened in some cases. I analysed this to and fro for a long time before making the decision to bring it back in. With hindsight, after a year and a half, the ability to amalgamate all the different parts of the veterans portfolio, including pensions, injury claims, records and the resource that Defence brings, has brought us far further forward. Would that have happened if the OVA had not been outside in the first place? I cannot comment, but its position in Defence, where it is safeguarded as an organisation, means that it harnesses all the bureaucratic power that Defence can bring to move stuff forward.
I will come in a second to the issues of veterans’ mental health and having a veterans commissioner. But if we step back and look at Afghanistan—where some Committee members here served; I did five tours there—there was a palpable feel among the population that the Government were not doing enough, or that the system was not flat and fast enough to deal with the scale of the problem that Afghanistan was kicking out on rotations. We therefore saw an explosion in the number of veterans charities, and the reality is that we now have more than 1,000 veterans charities in the UK. That number is growing every day. Some are the best, most well-meaning people, doing an amazing job and dealing flat and fast with veterans in our communities at the grassroots level. They do an outstanding job, and we have to harness the best charities. Some big charities, too, do a fantastic job of analysing data and providing the Government with clear advice on how to support veterans. There is also everything in between. I will be clear: there are the most amazing charities, very good charities, average charities and a very small minority that do not deliver as efficiently as perhaps they should.
In the veterans portfolio, how do we help the charities cohere their capacity, the £1 billion market that is the veterans charity sector, to deliver it more effectively? And how do we do that in conjunction with local government, while understanding the good, the bad and the other group that sits to the right of that mark? That will stem from Valour. It has taken small steps, but it is moving forward relatively quickly. The first one was about the establishment of an OC—officer commanding—Valour, the head of Valour. Who will run this programme, which is not just about England, but about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
The reason why we need one central point of contact is that we have devolved Administrations that do things differently. We have a plethora of datasets that sit within big charitable organisations, sometimes feeding the output of the charities and at other times providing us with good, balanced analysis. The trouble is that we do not have a collective dataset to give us a clear understanding of the various issues across our veterans space. In fact, the RBL did a fantastic study on perception versus reality, on the statistics and the view of the population versus the actual realities for veterans at the grassroots level. It pointed to one thing: with so many charities needing to generate and raise funds, in some cases they had to champion the requirement for money to go to the most needy or individuals in most need of support.
When we look at the realities, most veterans leave the military and do not have an issue. A proportion have medium-level needs, and a proportion have some really acute needs. The reality and the perception, however, are different. Some of that is skewed, because we have created a charitable sector network that must generate an income from championing or sometimes pushing the most injured and the individuals who need the most support to the very front of the limelight. That creates a national narrative that turns veterans into victims, and I tell the Committee now that it is 110% not the case. Some individuals need lots of support, some need some support and other people go on to contribute to society with no impact whatever.
Mr Francois
To reinforce what the Minister is saying, Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, who for many years was the controller of SSAFA, always used to make the point that while clearly some people suffer as a result of their military career, as the Minister admits, the vast bulk emerge in good shape, remain in good shape and benefit immensely from their time in service. I put on record what Lieutenant General Gregory, the head of SSAFA until recently, said, if only to back up absolutely everything the Minister is saying.
Al Carns
Sir Andrew is an exceptionally good man, and few are more knowledgeable than him on veterans matters. We have a position where, in some cases, veterans are seen as victims, but we have no central body that understands the totality of veterans issues across the United Kingdom. Head Valour is therefore coming into place in the next month or two, with a new headquarters. What does a headquarters mean? It means pulling in all the data sources to provide us with a comprehensive view of the issues that veterans face in this country—a balanced, analytical view, not one that is sometimes skewed by institutional organisations or other bodies. That is not because it is in their interests to do so, but it might be a passion project. It is about providing a balanced, analytical view, which must be data-led and have the horsepower to do that across all the devolved nations.
There is, of course, no point pooling data feeds if they come in all sorts of different forms. That brings in the Valour centres. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about camaraderie. One of the issues at the moment is that when a veteran has a mental health issue, they have to go to eight different charities before they land on the right one. They usually start with family or a friend, and they will then go from one charity to another, having to bounce around, retelling the story, reliving the trauma. Sometimes, by the time they get three or four down the line, they give up. That is where we have some pretty catastrophic consequences.
The Valour centres are about taking some of the existing centres—we have more than 700, and growing, across the country—finding the very best ones, providing them with long-term Government funding, and standardising the services and engagement. We will ensure that they understand their local networks of the good, the bad and the ugly charities, and can then distribute resources down to them, to provide a set of standard-ish services as best we can—that goes back to the postcode issue. Secondly, we will ensure that the data flows back up to the headquarters in a manner that can be digested and analysed in the most effective way. On top of the Valour centres, field officers in local councils will help to control the centres, as well as to hold councils to account should they not fall in line with the covenant and some of the principles we have talked about today. We are in the foothills; in the future, we should have a far better, greater dataset for us collectively to analyse.
I do not believe that putting one individual in charge of veterans’ mental health would provide us with the systemic jump to deal effectively with that issue. Courage is a programme from the previous Government. We have taken it on and kept it going, because it is working well. For everything we have talked about today—mental health, housing, education, and special educational needs and disabilities—we need the data flowing in, proper analysis and then proper, comprehensive solutions flowing back down. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support new clause 2.
When I was Minister for Veterans and People and dealt with the veterans commissioners, I did not really know whether they were in the right place, in the wrong place or doing the right things. They were brought in from a devolved Government perspective to ensure that we could continue to check and balance the devolved Governments in line with central Westminster policy. Interestingly, 85% of all veterans, which equates to about 1.7 million people, live in England—a veterans commissioner for England would be a huge role.
I have been clear, I think on the record, that once Valour is up and running and we establish the framework for how the hubs will work, we then need to deal with whether we need a veterans commissioner for England. I would suggest that it may be positive, depending on the veterans architecture out there. Why do I say that? At the moment, we have armed forces champions, at different levels and with different terms of reference—some part time, some full time, some employed by councils and some not—and we have Valour field officers going into councils. We have veterans commissioners in the devolved Governments, and then we have the head of Valour, who will have a whole set of data, with the Valour centre network sitting below them. Throwing a commissioner on top of that, at the same time, would perhaps dilute the hierarchy and centralised control. I absolutely understand the utility of having a fourth commissioner in place over time and, although I have to oppose new clause 6, I would like to take on this discussion. I have a feeling that, in the next 24 months or so, we will be moving in the right direction with regard to the measure.
Mr Francois
The Minister has made a strong argument. I place on the record my admiration for the three veterans commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom are excellent at what they do. I seem to recall—I do not have the Hansard here—that when we were debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, I asked the Minister when we would get an English veterans commissioner, and he was pretty clear that we would get one. The Minister today has intimated that we will probably still get one, so he is being consistent, but can he give us some idea of the timing?
Al Carns
Once we analyse the tapestry of veterans support, I would like to come to a solution on the English veterans commissioner to align with and amplify what we do on Valour. I think that Valour will take 36 months to be properly embedded in our local councils, with the structures and data network in place. It has taken us longer than I expected to get the Valour OC in place, but perhaps that is one for the bar downstairs.
The Chair
Before I put the Question, I remind colleagues that I will not be putting the Questions on the new clauses. We take them in the order as on the amendment paper; they are at the end of the amendment paper, so we will not vote on them as part of this group.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)