Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch off or silence electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted during the sitting, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
I remind Members to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room and on the Parliament website, shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
I also remind Members that amendments may be tabled during the recess. Amendments for consideration on 14 April, our first sitting after the recess, must be tabled no later than 4.30 pm on Thursday 9 April. Amendments for consideration at the sitting on 16 April must be tabled no later than the rise of the House on Monday 13 April.
Clause 3
Defence housing and other property
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.
Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point.
We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts.
We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit.
Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons.
Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us.
There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time.
The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill.
Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury.
As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published.
That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way.
In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased.
Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I wish to add some points to bolster the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.
We were promised the DIP before Christmas, but right hon. and hon. Members do not need me to tell them that it is now the end of March and we still do not have it. It is all well and good talking about a 25% reduction in delivery costs and about improved military housing, but until those promises are reflected in a clear, costed defence investment plan, they will remain words, not guarantees.
That is precisely why my right hon. Friend’s amendment 17 is so important. It states that if the Government are serious about defence housing, the Defence Housing Service’s budget must be set out in the DIP. It would tie the rhetoric on forces housing, new helicopters and new military hardware to an actual budget line. If Ministers truly intend to deliver what they have promised, they should have no difficulty in writing it into a plan.
Let us be clear with our service personnel and their families. We welcome investment when it is real, but we will not pretend that an uncosted statement is the same as a funded commitment. Until the Government publish the defence investment plan and the DHS budget is there in black and white, this House is being asked to take it on trust. That is not good enough.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I put on record my thanks to the DIO team, Natalie Elphicke Ross and the collective armed forces for helping us to design this well-thought-through and very effective defence housing strategy. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his amendment concerning the Defence Housing Service budget, and for his interest, as always, in the defence investment plan.
The defence housing strategy will be backed by £9 billion of funding to deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding that did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer or the improvements that service families deserve. I have lived in service family accommodation, as I am sure other hon. Members have. We have seen the oscillating budgets. We have seen, in some cases, the lack of value for money.
When this Government came in, one thing we said we would absolutely do was ensure that people can have safe, secure, dry homes to live in if their loved ones go overseas to protect the freedoms we enjoy. That is why we set out the defence housing strategy. We liaised with a plethora of individuals, from the families federations to housing associations, to ensure that we came up with a well-thought-through plan that is funded and looks at the medium and long term as well as the short term.
The Defence Housing Service budget will be clearly set out. It will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report, so there will be accountability. As the Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that is stopping the Department getting work under way now. The Defence Housing Service can be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.
David Reed
We have heard these arguments in Committee, we have had experts come in and we have visited defence housing. We need to get to the nub of this. The wording being used today is that there will be £9 billion in the budget and that we know it will be in the defence investment plan. As it is reported that the defence investment plan is sat on the Prime Minister’s desk at the moment, and I am sure the Minister will have seen the defence investment plan, can he confirm today that he has seen that £9 billion in the defence investment plan, and that it will be signed off with that £9 billion for housing?
Al Carns
I can confirm that £9 billion will be secured to ensure that we get the defence housing strategy and the Defence Housing Service up and running. We have said that in Parliament previously, and I reiterate it here.
It is worth noting the need for a Defence Housing Service and the professionalisation of our service as a whole, because some of the stats and facts from the time we came into Government were, I can only say, nothing short of shocking. In November 2023, there was a high of 4,200 complaints. Where is it in 2026? It is 400. We have already made improvements, we are heading in the right direction and we will continue to deliver in due course. We are getting on with the job of making improvements now for service families and preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service so that we can go even further and faster to fix defence homes.
Setting a requirement in legislation, in the way that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford suggests, is not only unnecessary but risks frustrating the vital work of the Defence Housing Service. His amendment 17, which specifies that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP, risks constraining the service in the scenario in which investment is set in the defence investment plan but then has to rise thereafter. That could happen, for example, in the case of additional increases in personnel, or a change in the international situation that could require additional housing. Any additional spending would risk being in breach of the requirement unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. That would undoubtedly constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I understand what the Minister says—that there may be extenuating circumstances where there may need to be flex within the budget—but the most important thing that we are trying to establish is that this money is absolutely guaranteed.
At the Defence statement the other day, I asked what “flat out” meant when the Secretary of State was talking about finalising the defence investment plan. I was told it meant that they were “working flat out”, so the Minister will forgive me for seeking further reassurances. I would also be very interested to know whether he has indeed seen the defence investment plan, with this budget line item in it.
Al Carns
I can say that we are working flat out on the absolute shambles we were left by the Conservative party. I can also say, as the Defence Secretary said in the House, that £9 billion will be allocated to the Defence Housing Service. The study has been completed. It is a very effective strategy. It has taken into account a lot of the other details that were excluded in the past. It has pulled them all together and has put in place a comprehensive strategy that will be funded.
Mr Francois
I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad.
I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?
Al Carns
My role, when it comes to defence investment, is primarily linked to uncrewed systems. I have been pushing as hard as I can to ensure that there is significant resource and consideration of not just the delivery of capability, but training, tactics and procedures, and the inculcation of drones and autonomous systems into our armed forces.
Mr Francois
We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”
This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
“‘2006 decent homes standard’ means the document called ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006.”
This amendment defines the 2006 decent homes standard and is consequential on Amendment 3.
Mr Francois
The purpose of amendment 14 is to make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. I will attempt to give credit where it is due. For context, the quality of service quarters, and in particular the maintenance of those quarters—especially maintenance of boilers and heating, dealing with mould, and suchlike—has been a constant bugbear for many service personnel and their families for decades. It is something that I went into considerable detail about in the “Stick or Twist?” report in 2020, to which I shall refer in more detail later this morning.
The previous Conservative Government entered into a new housing management contract—the future defence infrastructure services programme, or FDIS—prior to the last general election. It is probably fair to say that there were quite a number of teething problems when that contract went live. Indeed, I expressed a number of reservations about FDIS in the “Stick or Twist?” report before it came in.
However, the information I have is that after persistent pressure from Ministers—initially Conservative Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and now Labour Ministers, including the Minister on the Committee, to give credit where it is due—the performance of contractors under the FDIS contract has improved. We heard as much from the families federations—from the customer side of the equation, as it were.
It can also be seen in the ratings, which are recorded annually in the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which allows us to track customer satisfaction with the quality of maintenance of SFA. There is a specific question on that every year. Again I give credit where it is due for the introduction of a charter for the homes of service personnel and their families. Of course, it is the families who have to put up with the frustration of any failures, particularly if their loved ones are deployed away from base for any operational reason for any period of time. The families back home have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis, so if it is getting better, that is clearly to be welcomed.
Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the Defence Housing Service and its functions, including
“(a) improving the supply and quality of defence housing,
(b) managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes,
(c) securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and
(d) supporting in other ways—
(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and
(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”
I am sure that no one on the Committee will object to any of those objectives. But given the history I just outlined, the essence of amendment 14 is to introduce a fifth objective:
“improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”
Although I have no doubt that those who came up with the proposed Defence Housing Service fully intended to do this, the aim of the amendment is to place that objective firmly on the face of the Bill and, in so doing, establish it as an additional, clearly defined objective of the Defence Housing Service. Then, with the customer charter and assuming that we continue to ask similar questions in the armed forces continuous attitude survey every year, it should be possible to use that objective as an accurate metric to establish whether or not the Defence Housing Service is actually meeting one of its declared functions.
If we amend the Bill as I am suggesting, we could use it to hold the management of the Defence Housing Service and, I dare say, Ministers to account for the performance of the new service. It seems to us that this is quite a common-sense way to proceed. Therefore, I rather hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment without my having to divide the Committee.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have tabled. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3, so I will speak about them together.
What we are talking about here is a sensible proposal. Indeed, the Government and the Lib Dems have already had many discussions on this proposal, and the Government have already accepted it in a related area of law. I therefore hope the Minister will treat it as a tidying-up exercise on which we can all agree.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to enshrine the decent homes standard as the minimum standard for the Defence Housing Service. The decent homes standard has been in law for about two decades, and the Government recently incorporated it into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Of course, that takes us to the whole point of the armed forces covenant, which is to make sure that service personnel are not prejudiced in any way by their service. If the decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it follows, if we are to apply the covenant as intended, that service personnel should also be afforded the same standard.
What is the decent homes standard? Anyone who has served, as I have, has at some point in time been housed in accommodation that is just beyond belief. I spent some time in accommodation that was actually condemned, which meant that no money was being spent on it because it was going to be demolished at some unspecified point in the future, but I lived in it for the entire time I was there.
At that time, I was single, but of course it is not just those who serve who expect to live in decent homes; their families expect to, as well. In a minute, I will refer to the continuous attitude surveys and what service personnel feel about their service accommodation. However, it is often the pressure on their family—their wife or husband, and the children—that make service personnel think, “I can deal with this, but I do not want my family to have to deal with it.”
What is the decent homes standard? As originally defined, it refers to a home being in
“a reasonable state of repair”.
Obviously, if that standard were applied, it would immediately outlaw things like damp. It also says that a property should have modern “facilities and services” and provide a reasonable degree of “thermal comfort”, so we would probably expect double glazing, rather than the single glazing that I had, although it was 20 years ago.
A more recent document published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January sets out the new decent homes standard. Amendment 3 seeks to enforce the original 2006 standard, because the document published in January is a White Paper and is not yet Government policy. The new decent homes standard seeks to reflect things like modern energy efficiency standards, as we would expect.
This does not seem much to ask, and the Lib Dems pushed for it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act. The Government originally voted against it on Report, but then they made the amendment to the legislation. I am not presenting that to the Committee in a partisan way; I merely want to say that we have already had this discussion, and the Government have accepted that it is the appropriate standard for civilian renters. Service personnel are also renting—they pay money for their accommodation, so they are renting—so the standard should be reflected in their housing.
What do service personnel say about their accommodation? I accept that it has improved, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, but there are still problems. Let me give the Committee a few statistics. One in five personnel plans to leave the armed forces, and 25% of those cited the standard of accommodation as a reason for leaving. At a time when we have a retention crisis, it seems that we should be focusing on that. I know the Government are focusing on it, and in tabling this amendment we are trying to help them to fix the problem. Of the 78% of service personnel who live in service accommodation, only half—51%—remain satisfied with the state of their housing. So there are problems, although improvements have been made.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, which was amended to include the decent homes standard, the MOD was mandated to report to Parliament on the state of service housing. The idea was that it would gradually move defence housing stock up to the decent homes standard. Of course, the problem with how it was laid out in the Act is that no targets or timelines were set, so although the MOD reports to Parliament, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on the attainment of that standard for service personnel.
Amendments 3 and 4 seek to put that accountability in place and ensure that the MOD has to achieve the standard. When it reports to Parliament, the amendments would ensure there is a mechanism by which Parliament can hold the MOD accountable for attaining the standard for service personnel.
Mr Francois
I declare an interest: in the 1990s, I was the acting chairman of housing on what was then Basildon district council—so I was a housing specialist, but admittedly back in the last century. Incidentally, Basildon was once described as the only local authority in Britain where, at council meetings, councillors actively heckled the public gallery. From serving on the council, I can say that it is half true.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of features of the decent homes standard. What in his opinion are the critical two or three parts that, if we were to support his amendment, he would have the Government and the Defence Housing Service ensure above any others? What are the key two or three bits that he would like to press the Government on this morning?
Mike Martin
The decent homes standard, as set out in legislation, is a set of principles that can be enforced by the courts, and the courts will make the judgment. When we talk about modern facilities and services, for example, we are talking about what the courts would view as being modern and reasonable. I come back to the fact that we would probably expect double glazing, not single glazing. We would expect central heating, not individual electric fires. We would expect no damp. We would expect a carpet that does not have holes in it. Those are things that the courts would accept as reasonably approaching a decent homes standard, and as reflecting a reasonable state of repair and thermal comfort.
I will conclude now, Mr Efford. Thank you for your patience. What we are seeking to do here is a tidying-up exercise to support the Government in their aim to set service personnel and civilians on an equal level and make sure that service personnel and particularly their families are not prejudiced as a result of their service. If a decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it is good enough for service renters.
Al Carns
I believe that amendment 14, moved by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, is unnecessary. It is clear that the Defence Housing Service will have a service ethos at its heart, and we are already way ahead on that. The Committee heard from representatives of the families federations during the evidence sessions, in which Cat Calder from the Army Families Federation said that during the course of the defence housing strategy review, it was
“very much engaged with, listened to and questioned”,
and its views “taken into consideration.” That will continue as the defence housing strategy turns to the Defence Housing Service and the implementation of changes across the entire estate.
I welcome the right hon. Member’s comments about the FDIS statistical change. When I first took over this job, I visited multiple defence housing providers and, indeed, the houses themselves. I line-by-lined the cost of everything from a plunger to the taps to make sure we were extracting the best value for money from those contractual services. The trend was already moving, and I believe it has moved in the right direction. There is always work to do, but we have our foot on that pressure point and will ensure we extract best value for money and best time when it comes to the delivery of services for our families in service housing.
Importantly, throughout the development of the defence housing strategy, families have been at the very heart of the discussion to ensure that their views are considered, along with the differences between the way of life and operational priorities of the Army, RAF and Navy. That is why we have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The Defence Housing Service will have a service family representative on its independent board.
We are already making rapid improvements after many years of ebbing and flowing standards and service in military accommodation, and we have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences. That includes transforming 1,000 of the worst homes by Christmas with new kitchens, bathrooms and floors, which the Committee will know from its visits were previously in a shoddy state. Some are still in that space, but we are moving rapidly to change it.
We are modernising outdated policies, giving families greater freedom to improve their homes, and streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home or simply have a pet. We are also delivering named housing officers, as it is critical to have a central point of contact to make complaints to, or to demand better services, as well as delivering photos, floor plans and a new online repair service.
Mr Francois
This might seem like a point of detail, but it is important. I will come on to “Stick or Twist?” later, but one thing that came out very clearly is that many families wanted what used to be known in old money as “patch managers”, often a retired senior NCO who lived nearby, who knew the patch and all the quarters intimately. He knew that No. 23 had always had a slightly wonky boiler or whatever. He was someone that all the families knew, and who the wives could get hold of if their spouse was away on deployment. We have named housing officers, but at what level do they operate? Do we have one per patch, per garrison or per region? How close to ground level are these named housing officers?
Al Carns
I will get back to the right hon. Member with the exact numbers of housing officers and how much patch they will oversee and manage, depending on the different service contracts. As he will be aware, the Army, Navy and Air Force approach it in different ways. Some have retired officers in a Reserve billet, looking after everything from welfare to housing. Others have specific housing officers, and some have none at all. There is a requirement to standardise that, hence the reason for housing officers coming in. I believe that housing officers work most effectively when they have either served or have an understanding of service. We are seeking to replace the single point of contact for families to go to should they have a problem with their housing or the facilities provided by the contractual arrangements.
On the promises that were made to families, it is worth noting that work is fully under way to deliver them under the consumer charter. We are also seeing results. Satisfaction in defence homes is rising: rates are now at 51%, their highest level since 2021. I would argue that that has resulted in an increase in both retention and recruitment, pulling more people into the military. We have seen a 13% increase in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow.
I have always been really honest that, in the short term, we are getting after this with 1,000 homes and the consumer charter, but that we will really see the benefits over the medium to longer term, with a complete rejuvenation of the estate. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily, from a low of 23% in January 2023 to 66% in 2025. In February 2026, we received 400 complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 complaints in November 2023, so we are making progress. We want to get that 400 figure down even further and will continue to endeavour to do so.
Amendments 3 and 4 propose to specify further in legislation the standards that accommodation should meet. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for his service and for his attention to ensuring that service family accommodation meets the standards that families rightly expect. The conduct and the candour of this debate have shown that we all want the same thing.
As part of the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy, we are already making rapid improvements, including through the new consumer charter for service family accommodation, which the Secretary of State announced last year, with the first set of those commitments delivered way ahead of Christmas. Through the wider plan set out under the defence housing strategy, we will be delivering improvements to nine in 10 defence family homes over a decade of renewal, delivering on the opportunity presented by the buy-back of the estate in January 2025.
In relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, the MOD is already committed to meeting and publishing compliance with the standard. The defence housing strategy specifically addresses the issue and sets out that the housing standard should keep pace not only with the decent homes standard, but with wider housing safety requirements such as Awaab’s law.
Al Carns
If the hon. Member will let me, I will come back to him with a specific timeline for the process.
In reply to an earlier question, there are 122 housing officers in total, and the figure will increase over time. Each housing officer is responsible for 300 to 400 homes. Although the housing officer will be a specific individual in place, a lot of armed forces also have other welfare officers and facilities. However, this is a step in the right direction to providing a single point of contact.
Mr Francois
I am grateful for that detail. I agree that it is a step in the right direction, so it would be churlish not to welcome it. To give credit where it is due, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was a Minister in the Department, he invested several hundred million pounds in what was known as the mould action plan. Its aim was to get after the problem not just with temporary fixes, but with long-term work on properties with a persistent mould problem. As I have tried to be fair to the Government this morning, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that my hon. Friend put quite a lot of effort into that issue in defence housing. There has subsequently been some success, has there not?
Al Carns
I agree. The mould action plan got after a large chunk of the problem. I know there was work that went on previously, including “Stick or Twist?” and other reviews, but now that we have got rid of the Annington deal and got control of our estate, we can take a far more strategic outlook. That is what the defence housing strategy is all about, so that we ensure that we get best value for money over a longer period and do not have to spend huge amounts in a short time, which unfortunately can result in poor contractual agreements and not the best value for money.
The mechanism for embedding the standards, as well as Awaab’s law, including any changes over time, has already been included in the Bill. It has been deliberately drafted in that way to provide a mechanism for capturing future changes to policy without requiring legislative change. As a case in point, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells specified the 2006 decent homes standard in amendment 3, but he will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is already in the process of introducing a revised decent homes standard. The amendment, although absolutely well intentioned, is too specific. It would set in stone a policy position that would rapidly become redundant. Further mechanisms will ensure that we keep in line with the decent homes standard, such as providing a report into the system on, I think, a yearly basis—I will clarify that point in due course.
I reassure the hon. Member that in practice the Ministry of Defence already uses the 2006 decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation and will work to meet the new decent homes standard as it is introduced. The same applies to Awaab’s law, which is being taken forward through the consumer charter. As the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy progresses, we will aim not just to meet minimum standards, but to provide homes that any of us would be proud to live in.
The scale of the problem should not be underestimated. The defence housing estate was built at any time from the 1960s all the way up to the early 2000s, with single-skin walls and a plethora of issues. It will take a medium to long-term strategy to deliver real, meaningful change over time. The messaging to the armed forces and their families is that we are on this: we have assured the money and we will head in the right direction to improve defence housing over the medium to longer term.
I hope that the points that I have set out provide the necessary reassurance as to why amendments 14, 3 and 4 are not necessary and can be withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. None the less, we feel strongly about amendment 14, so we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I should point out that the amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they would amend the Bill, so we will not take a vote on amendments 3 and 4 right now. We will come to that point in due course.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”
This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access.
My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit.
This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.
David Reed
I am sure that many Members will recognise the unique situation that many armed forces personnel and their families face. Family life in service is often marked by prolonged periods of separation, frequent relocations and the operational demands that come with serving one’s country—I know many members of the Committee have experienced that life. Those pressures can place significant strain on relationships, particularly where families are no longer living together.
In those circumstances, maintaining meaningful contact between parents and their children can be especially challenging. I think we can all agree that, where it is safe and appropriate, children benefit greatly from having a consistent and positive relationship with both parents, regardless of whether one or both are serving. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has laid out expertly how his amendment would not cut across what the courts have said. It seeks only to bolster the relationship between parents and children.
Amendment 15 would address a practical but important barrier to contact. By requiring service accommodation policies to make explicit provision for contact visits, it would recognise that the current system does not always adequately support separated families. Too often, there is no suitable space or arrangement in which a serving parent can spend proper quality time with their child, particularly where accommodation is limited, shared or not designed with family visits in mind, as we saw on our recent visit to Portsmouth.
Earmarking accommodation for this purpose would provide a clear and structured way to support those relationships. It would ensure that when a serviceperson seeks to maintain contact with their child, they are not prevented from doing so by logistical constraints or by a lack of appropriate facilities. It is a modest and proportionate step, but one that could make a meaningful difference to the wellbeing of service families.
Importantly, this is not about creating new entitlements without limits. It is about recognising a specific and foreseeable need, and ensuring that the system is equipped to meet it in a fair and practical way. It reflects our broader duty to support those who serve, not only in their professional capacity but in their family life.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Having had years of personal experience, I think it is a shame that the modernised accommodation offer did not go through, because that would have dealt with these situations. We are back to square one. The Minister will be aware that specific contact orders will have to be maintained, but we will have to build from a standing start after the disaster of the modernised accommodation offer.
David Reed
I recognise the hon. Member’s point. The service that she explains is not equitable across the whole system. I know that she speaks with experience. Having served myself, I have had friends in similar situations who have not received the type of support that she would have expected. I hope that progress can be made under the Bill. The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford would push that agenda and make life, and having a relationship with their children, a lot easier for those who serve.
Mike Martin
I would like to make some brief comments in support of amendment 15. We should reflect on how the divorce rate is much higher for service personnel because of the vagaries of service life and the stress under which it can put relationships. A measure like this is the least we can do to mitigate the worst excesses that result from service life. As hon. Members will know, court orders often come with specifications that appropriate surroundings be available for contact visits. By agreeing to this amendment, we would ensure that provision is available to facilitate such orders.
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment. I absolutely recognise the importance of facilitating contact visits between service personnel and their families; there are people here with experience of that.
The reality is that as we have come into government, we have the wrong houses in the wrong place in the wrong amount. That requires a whole restructuring of our defence housing estate to ensure that it matches and moulds itself to varying requirements across the population.
I was a base commander, and we had several welfare houses. There is a joint service publication in MOD policy, JSP 770, that designates service family accommodation as welfare support accommodation. This is a joint process with local military commands and welfare services to provide housing for welfare requirements. It cannot simply be met with the responsibilities that the amendment seeks to set for the Defence Housing Service.
Moreover, there has to be flexibility in the use of welfare support accommodation to ensure that it can respond to local needs and local requirements, including other important welfare uses such as those relating to domestic abuse and safeguarding. It would be far too inflexible for it to be earmarked as accommodation solely for contact visits, as the amendment sets out. That would limit our ability to respond to urgent needs of other kinds.
More generally, the issue that hon. Members have highlighted is only one part of a much bigger issue that the Defence Housing Service is being set up to address, which is that the defence estate is wrongly configured as a result of the legacy of Annington and years of under-investment, with not enough homes in the right places to meet the requirements of service personnel.
The focus of the Defence Housing Service is to improve existing homes and create thousands more, including by delivering widened access to accommodation for modern families. Its progress against that will be set out for Parliament to scrutinise through the annual reporting process. The defence housing strategy team looked at the issue as part of its review. An important conclusion of the review was a recognition of the important role that local welfare-based discretion plays in managing service personnel’s housing needs, which cannot always be planned from the centre.
The reality is that welfare houses provide a capability for a plethora of needs, from supporting individuals who have been subject to abuse all the way through to providing a comforting environment for families who have broken up or separated and need a place to live and thrive with their children. To narrow them down to one use may not meet the local requirement, but I absolutely support the premise and the positivity behind the amendment. Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements that are already in place, I see the amendment as unnecessary.
Mr Francois
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is replying. I have learned to take his word. Just so he does not think that we have a blanket policy of voting on everything this morning, if he gives me his word that he will take the issue back to the Department and the people setting up the DHS and look very seriously at how we might do a bit better, in return I shall not press the amendment. Can he give me that comfort now?
Al Carns
It is absolutely right and proper that we do that. I would like to go a step further: we could probably organise a sit-down with Natalie Elphicke Ross and the team at the Defence Housing Service. It has already been thought through, but they can explain it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any insight into how he would improve it, or indeed any reflections from his own experience of the defence estate, we will take that forward. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Francois
I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mike Martin
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “service family accommodation” and insert “defence housing”.
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service pertains to all defence housing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Single living accommodation standards—
“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.
(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“single living accommodation” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;’.”
This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.
Mike Martin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendment and the new clause are designed to do the same thing in two separate pieces of legislation. Essentially, this is about making sure that defence home standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. That is important because, as well as approximately 47,500 service family accommodation properties in the UK, there are 100,000 single living accommodation spaces. In terms of numbers of properties, if not people, there are twice as many SLAs as there are service family accommodation properties.
I will give the Committee a bit of detail, because the detail is quite important. There may be a lacuna in the drafting of the Bill, so perhaps we can accept the amendment as a tidying-up measure. If there is no gap in the drafting of the Bill, perhaps the Minister could speak to why there is a difference between different provisions.
Proposed new section 343E(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 specifies that the Defence Housing Service will have the general functions of
“improving the supply and quality of defence housing”.
Subsection (8) defines “defence housing” as both service family accommodation and single living accommodation. So far, so good. However, subsection (6) refers only to service family accommodation and not to single living accommodation. The requirements in subsection (6) are therefore not the same as in subsection (8). I am pretty sure that the Ministry of Defence and the Government want defence housing standards to apply across all accommodation, rather than just to service family accommodation. Taken together, that means there may be a gap in how the provisions are interpreted. I am sure we all agree that the standards should apply to service family accommodation and single living accommodation.
New clause 1 would apply the same concept—broadening the scope of defence housing standards to cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation—to the Renters’ Rights Act, which contains a number of provisions that pertain to service accommodation. Wherever “service family accommodation” appears in the Act, the new clause would simply add “and single living accommodation”, thereby broadening the scope of the Act. I do not know whether that omission was an oversight or deliberate. If it was deliberate, will the Minister explain why? Why are we setting single living accommodation apart from service family accommodation? It is very important that service families are protected, but there are twice as many SLA properties as SFA properties.
Al Carns
I shall speak first to amendment 2. I thank the hon. Member for his engagement.
The measures in the Bill build on 18 months of work to stop the rot in defence housing and build for the future. We are buying back 36,000 military family houses from Annington and delivering a new consumer charter. We have already got after the first 1,000 homes, published the defence housing strategy and, importantly, we have launched the new single living accommodation review. That is important because there is a separation.
What the hon. Member is getting at is where, in some cases, we have Defence Housing Service family accommodation that is repurposed for single living accommodation because we have excess housing or a lack of single living accommodation on the base. Therefore, we must include both elements in bits of the Bill, but not all of the Bill, because SLA is subject to a completely separate review.
Mike Martin
I know of what the Minister speaks. A four-bedroom house may have four servicepeople living in it as single living accommodation—the defence equivalent of a house in multiple occupation—but does that not speak to the point that SLA and SFA should be treated under the same standards?
Al Carns
I fundamentally disagree. The review of single living accommodation will describe the complexity of the problems we have across the entire estate with both the shape and size of our single living accommodation, the requirements of a changing population, and how best to manage them. To combine the two would detract in particular from the defence housing strategy because of the funding mechanisms, ownership and oversight of single living accommodation.
Amendment 2 would have the effect of broadening the Defence Housing Service’s responsibility for the standard of housing to include single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation, which the Government do not believe is appropriate in any shape or form. Single living accommodation operates in a fundamentally different way from service family accommodation, and the two must therefore be separated. SLA is housing provided for individual service personnel living without families, typically on military bases behind the wire, with the primary responsibility sitting with frontline commands and the demand signal set by their operational requirements. Recognising the difference, the defence housing strategy, which sets out the basis for the Defence Housing Service, did not recommend that the Defence Housing Service is responsible for all single living accommodation, but recognised the need for dedicated, focused attention on service families that the new organisation will provide.
We are committed to driving up standards in single living accommodation, just as we are with service family accommodation. A separate, dedicated review of single living accommodation is already under way and should be complete in the summer. The Minister for Veterans and People is leading that, and pushing forward on it hard and fast.
Mike Martin
The Minister is being very generous with his time. Could he state precisely the difference between SLA and SFA that means we cannot bring them together?
Al Carns
Single living accommodation is often hundreds of rooms—think student accommodation—in barrack blocks behind the wire. Service family accommodation is often on the other side of the wire, out in the local population. Single living accommodation houses individuals rather than families. The whole set-up is completely different—some have cooking facilities and some do not. To balance the two on the same standards would completely skew the system.
I assure the hon. Member that the single living accommodation review is fully under way. It will look into this separately and deliver a strategy that is similar to the defence housing strategy, but it will look specifically at the nuances of single living accommodation. I think that many of the points the hon. Member is getting at will be included in that review and be open to scrutiny.
Mike Martin
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that we are going to take different routes but get to the same place. If he could give me assurances that we are going to see the same standards reflected in SFA as SLA, but they are going to be managed through separate processes, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Al Carns
The requirements are different for SLA and family accommodation, but we both want the same thing: the best accommodation, whether for a family or a single person living on base, either separated from their family or single. What I can offer the hon. Member is to engage and talk him through the single living accommodation strategy as it builds, so he can ensure his points are included and we either fill the knowledge gap or make the strategy reflect the intent of providing the best accommodation for single individuals outside the family setting.
Mr Francois
It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.
Al Carns
I completely accept that. There are just nuances and differences in the requirements, and that will be reflected in the outcomes of both reviews. Again, I offer that engagement—if the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells would like to get involved and ensure that his points are made as the strategy is built, he can affect the output as required.
The Government believe that a dedicated focus on the Defence Housing Service and family accommodation is the best way to achieve the step change needed for defence, specifically on family homes. We will continue simultaneously to drive up the standard of single living accommodation, and further detail will be set out in the next steps following the ongoing SLA review. If it is any consolation, I lived in single living accommodation for a large chunk of my life and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly, so I will personally be behind that work to ensure we get the best standards.
New clause 1 is designed to include single living accommodation within section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act. It would require the Ministry of Defence to report annually to Parliament on the extent to which such accommodation meets the decent homes standard. As someone who has lived in single living accommodation for a huge chunk of my life, I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, but the Government do not believe it is the right way to drive up standards in single living accommodation.
As Members may recall, this matter was debated during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government set out why the decent homes standard cannot sensibly be applied to single living accommodation. Such accommodation exists to support operational readiness and cannot be treated in the same way as social housing or other forms of civilian housing.
Single living accommodation spans a huge range of types, many with shared facilities, and therefore, by definition, some parts of the decent homes standard would be difficult to meet. For example, the standard requires each unit to have adequate kitchen facilities, but single living accommodation units do not necessarily all have their own kitchens, because full professional subsidised catering is provided on defence bases or sites. For that very reason, civilian housing with shared facilities, such as purpose-built student accommodation, is typically not covered by the 2006 decent homes standard.
Mike Martin
That is not what new clause 1 seeks to do. It is about amending the Renters’ Rights Act so that defence housing standards cover both service family accommodation and single living accommodation, rather than applying the decent homes standard, as in the previous amendments we discussed.
Al Carns
I make it clear that we are not talking about amending the Renters’ Rights Act; we are talking about the Armed Forces Bill, but I am happy to take this offline and talk about the nuance between the two if required. We need to be clear that this does not mean we are complacent about the condition of single living accommodation—far from it. We are committed to driving up the quality of single living accommodation across the entire estate and ensuring that people get the experience they deserve if they are to serve on the frontline.
The Minister for Veterans and People has commissioned an independent review and is working on it now, and the single living accommodation piece should be complete by the summer. I will strongly recommend that she engage with the hon. Gentleman to talk through how we can work collaboratively towards the best solution for defence personnel. The review is the right vehicle for this work; it is targeted, expert-led and focused on the specific needs of those who serve.
Our commitment is simple: we will deliver safe, comfortable and well-maintained accommodation for our service personnel, taking into account the unique nature of service as a whole. I hope that reassures the Committee. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 2 or new clause 1.
Mike Martin
In the light of the Minister’s words— I know him well from before we came into politics—I am happy to take him up on his offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”—(Mike Martin.)
This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 3, page 9, line 27, at end insert—
“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”
This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.
The amendment relates to the reporting chain of the proposed new Defence Housing Service. In essence, it means that once the Defence Housing Service is established, it should report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of that service.
The genesis of the amendment is that when we were taking further evidence on the proposals for the DHS a little over a week ago, there appeared to be some ambiguity about how exactly it will report to Ministers. As I recall, we were told that it will have a partial reporting line, or the equivalent, into DIO headquarters—to keep it in the loop, I think—but that it will also report to Ministers via the National Armaments Director. At first hearing, that is somewhat surprising.
As a person who is primarily appointed to sort out the procurement challenges facing the Ministry of Defence, of which we all know there are many and about which I have railed for years, not least on the Defence Committee—it is all on the record—the NAD is not the most obvious choice to oversee an organisation designed to provide high-quality housing for service personnel and their families. It seems odd. In short, the NAD will have enough problems sorting out issues like Ajax— I refer the Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago about Ajax—and the propulsion systems of the Type 45 destroyer and so on, without having to worry about the challenges of defence housing as well.
The new system in the MOD is part of what one might call the quadripartite arrangement in the post-Levene model of defence reform, and by that I mean the process not the party—in passing, of course, Reform Members are not on this Committee, but they hardly ever turn up during defence debates in the Commons anyway, so it is not much of a loss. We now have effectively four main pillars within the Ministry below ministerial level. We have the permanent secretary, with responsibility for MOD centre and administrative matters; the Chief of the Defence Staff, unsurprisingly responsible for specifically military matters; the National Armaments Director for matters relating to procurement and—dare I mention it—the defence equipment plan, which is part of the defence investment plan; and, lastly, the Chief of Defence Nuclear, for all aspects of the nuclear deterrent and the associated shore-based infrastructure, which is now, as the Minister will know, a very challenging area for the Department.
Mike Martin
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he think that the metrics by which that bonus is judged should be made public?
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment—every dog has its day. Yes, I think it should, and that is partly the purpose for tabling the amendment.
For the avoidance of doubt, I accept in principle that, given the very large amounts of money we spend on equipment procurement—potentially more than £0.25 trillion over the next decade—paying someone quite a lot of money to get it to work is inherently not an unreasonable thing to do. Nevertheless, the appointment did raise eyebrows across the civil service.
To be fair, as I understand it, the chief executive of BAE Systems earns about £10 million a year—although if we look at what he has done to its share price, a shareholder might argue that it is a pretty good investment. Charles Woodburn is widely regarded in the industry as knowing what he is about, and is a highly professional leader of that company.
None the less, I have sympathy with the question posed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. If this is part of the bonus arrangements, what are the metrics? If he were to get a bonus for the performance of Defence Housing Service, how do we know how much he will get? And how would we judge whether it is value for money, not just for the taxpayer but for the rent payers—the customers—of the Defence Housing Service? I hope the Committee will understand there is a genuine point at issue here.
We would be very interested to know what element, if any, of the NAD’s salary, and specifically the bonus payment, is related to the performance of the Defence Housing Service. By the same token—I hope the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is with me here—if the Defence Housing Service were to underperform, what would happen to the NAD’s base salary? Would it be docked? It is a really serious question.
To summarise, could the Minister explain why the Department decided to manage it in this way? There must be a rationale, and the Committee would like to know what it is. Could he also explain how these bonus arrangements will work and how transparent all of it will be?
David Reed
My right hon. Friend has just laid out a very strong case for why amendment 16 needs to be incorporated into the Bill, and I hope the Minister has taken those points on board—I look forward to hearing his wind-up. This is a straightforward but important amendment that seeks to bring clarity, accountability and proper ministerial oversight to the way in which the Defence Housing Service reports on its performance.
At present, the reporting structure is, frankly, overly complex. Responsibility is diffused across multiple layers, making it difficult to establish who is ultimately answerable when and if standards fall short. That lack of clarity does not serve service personnel or their families, who depend on the system working effectively. We know from our visits and from Members’ own experience that there is an overly complex and convoluted reporting chain where nothing really gets sorted and things are passed up but never actually worked on. We now have the opportunity to improve that structure.
I do not think the current structure assists the House in carrying out its proper scrutiny of how public money is spent and how vital services are delivered. The amendment would put that right by establishing a clear and direct line of accountability, and it would require the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Going back to the point that my right hon. Friend just raised, incorporating the National Armaments Director and having that person accountable in this long chain does not breed the view that Parliament needs to be able to scrutinise what is going on. Given how much the Minister cares about this, and the fact that he is an elected representative, I know he would want to have that view unfiltered from the Defence Housing Service itself.
This is a sensible and proportionate step that ensures that responsibility sits at the appropriate level and that there is a named Minister who can be held to account by this House. More importantly, the public will ultimately hold the Minister to account anyway. If I were in his shoes, I would want that unfiltered view coming straight up to me. If we are talking about performance bonuses—and I have no reason to believe that that is the case with the National Armaments Director, but if it were to be the case—I would not want anything to be tarnished or moved around that was linked to performance bonuses. I would not want there to be any incentives like that.
There is also a practical benefit. A direct reporting relationship will help to ensure that the issues are escalated more quickly, decisions are taken more efficiently and there is greater transparency around performance, which is something we all want to see. It should also lead to better oversight, sharper focus on delivery and, ultimately, improved outcomes for those living in service accommodation.
Al Carns
Amendment 16 would require that the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service reports directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces, which is my current role. In the way it is written, it would confuse accountability in the Defence Housing Service, undermine the role of the board in particular, including the role of the family representatives, and risk duplicating lines of ministerial accountability that are already set out in the Bill.
From my perspective, when we have an issue, in defence or in any organisation, it is down to either a lack of understanding, command or control or a lack of accountability. I want to ensure, and reassure, that when the board reports on the Defence Housing Service and its deliverables, it is unfiltered and untainted as it hits ministerial offices. The governance of the Defence Housing Service has been carefully set out to provide the right balance between independence, accountability and ministerial oversight.
For the organisation to deliver its objectives, it must operate alongside strategic oversight by the Department, including accountability to Ministers and Parliament as a whole. Under established arrangements for arm’s length bodies, arrangements that operate across Government, responsibility for overseeing performance sits with the body’s board, with the chair acting as the principal interface with Ministers. It is critical that the chair is the principal interface with Ministers, reducing the ability of anyone to filter or taint any reports as they come up and through.
The Defence Housing Service will remain accountable to Ministers through that board and via departmental sponsorship and arrangements, alongside increased reporting to Parliament on its performance, as set out in the Bill. The DHS will continue to work closely with departmental teams, which will be covered in the MOD framework document in the usual way. It will be operationally independent, within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers in the Bill.
Critically, for its day-to-day activities, the organisation will be accountable to an expert, independent board, which will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The board will include a family representative, alongside the service family involvement in the wider governance, to ensure that the Defence Housing Service is held to account by not only those with appropriate expertise but the families that it has been set up to serve. Given its importance, it is right that ministerial reporting be held at Secretary of State level, rather than with the Minister for the Armed Forces. I was responsible for the delivery of the strategy, but housing is not necessarily within my portfolio.
Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary and I urge the right hon. Member to withdraw it.
Mr Francois
I am so sorry; I have done it again. Mr Efford, I was not planning to press the amendment to a Division, but now I will—before I “retire”.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1 stand part.
New clause 7—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish a detailed feasibility study into the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).
(2) The Study must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report ‘Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it’.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the study before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a feasibility study into the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service.
Al Carns
Clause 3, together with schedule 1, creates the Defence Housing Service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our Defence Housing Service sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes, 90% of which will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt through a record £9 billion investment over a decade. The Defence Housing Service is the vehicle to drive that transformation.
The clause confers on the Defence Housing Service the functions of
“improving the supply and quality of defence housing,”
the management, regeneration or development of land used for defence purposes and
“supporting in other ways—
(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and
(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”
To fulfil those functions, the Defence Housing Service will be empowered to generate income from property and to manage land on behalf of the Secretary of State and others. It may enter into contracts, buy and sell property, borrow money with Treasury approval, provide financial assistance and form partnerships or joint ventures. It will also have compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for any purpose connected with its functions. The Defence Housing Service will be accountable to Ministers. It must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and comply with the terms of the framework agreement entered into with the Secretary of State.
Forces families have previously been let down by homes that are not fit for purpose; we are determined and focused on delivering that. A new set of military housing standards that are fit for service family life will be established, including the decent homes standard, which the Defence Housing Service will be required to meet, under the terms of the framework agreement. The Defence Housing Service will lead the renewal and development of military homes across the United Kingdom, while unlocking the potential to deliver 100,000 homes of all types on developed MOD land.
Mr Francois
I note that the Minister never answered my previous inquiry about the bonus arrangements for the NAD. He is speaking to the clause standing part of the Bill, so perhaps he can tell me now—though he may need to seek inspiration. What are the bonus arrangements for the NAD relating to the DHS? What metrics will be applied?
Al Carns
The board of the Defence Housing Service will be accountable to the Secretary of State. I will not go into the detail of the NAD’s bonuses and how they are credited in the Bill, because they are not related.
That renewal will not only benefit the country as a whole in delivering against wider Government housing and economic growth targets but follow a “forces first” principle, prioritising current and former military personnel wherever possible. The Defence Housing Service will transform military housing, improve quality of life for service families and ensure that Defence housing is finally properly managed in a professional and efficient manner.
David Reed
Referring back to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, the bonuses are an important part of the Bill. If accountability for housing is now going through the National Armaments Director, and we are seeking to increase visibility so that we can scrutinise what is happening in the Defence Housing Service, that bonus part is important. Maybe this is an area for the Committee of the whole House, but we have to dig into it.
Al Carns
On the question of accountability, the board will report directly to the Secretary of State. There will be no filtering and no taint on any information coming up. Therefore, I do not necessarily agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
I will address new clause 7 in my closing remarks.
Mr Francois
The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him.
I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others.
For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all.
Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem.
I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else?
We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently.
One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal:
“We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?”
We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives.
One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth.
Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end.
When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO.
In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say.
We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback.
Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways.
The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.
Mr Francois
I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like.
The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves.
There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.
Mr Foster
The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that
“transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.”
Was the right hon. Member aware of that?
Mr Francois
Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that.
The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal.
When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.”
I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7.
On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.
Al Carns
New clause 7 would require there to be a feasibility study when establishing a forces housing association, but before I go into the detail, I will reflect on some of the comments made by the right hon. Member.
Recruitment and retention are intrinsically linked, as both the Government and the Opposition acknowledge. We have introduced lots of changes in recruitment and retention over the last year and a half, but there is much more to do. While it differs across the services, overall we are seeing a 13% uptick in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow, which is the first time we have seen a change in direction for 14 years. There is much more to do, but we are heading in the right direction.
One of the reasons we are heading in the right direction is because I genuinely believe that our armed forces personnel can see that we are doing the right thing, particularly with accommodation. The right to a family life is one of the critical components of anyone serving, and that looks like safe, secure, warm and dry accommodation, whether single living or family accommodation. To give a small example, I went through marine training in 1999, and the accommodation in which I was housed was still in place in 2024, when I came back to be the unit’s commanding officer. In 1999 it was terrible, and in 2024 it was unworkable. We need to get after those accommodation issues and put them right. I am absolutely confident in the Defence Housing Service, and the strategy review comprehensively looked at single living accommodation and family accommodation, and we are putting them on the right track to deliver significant change.
It is not lost on me that the drafting system in the military can put an undue amount of pressure on individuals; I have been on a satellite phone to my children on their birthdays in the middle of all sorts of carnage, with helicopters burning and turning in the background, or with incoming rounds in Afghanistan. It puts exceptional pressure on families, so the ability to return to a safe and secure place is the least that we can provide.
The independent strategy produced prior to the establishment of the Defence Housing Service was exactly that: it was independent, and it took a huge amount of advice from a variety of people. Most importantly, the families federations fed into that process and ensured that their voices were heard. The quote highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble was only reinforced by the oral evidence given by Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE, when discussing the strategy review in response to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. The view was firmly held throughout the entire review that the housing association model was not the right approach, and it was not included in its recommendations.
It is worth noting that, while there were a plethora of strategic issues during covid, the previous Conservative Government did not adopt the totality of the “Stick or Twist?” report produced by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, although it contained valuable points. A housing association model would jeopardise the close working with the military that is essential to ensuring appropriate operational capability. It would also put at risk the Crown basis on which personnel occupy their homes. Crown immunities allow the Ministry of Defence to move personnel at pace, without some of the regulatory constraint that we would have otherwise, which is vital for operational effectiveness. We must also bear in mind that we have more throughput in the armed forces than probably any other organisation or housing association in the country.
Mr Francois
For the record, that was the one recommendation in the “Stick or Twist?” report that was not adopted. All the other recommendations were adopted, including spending a lot of money on wraparound childcare because, again, childcare was a very important point for retention. Ben Wallace told me that he used the report to get quite a bit of cash out of the Treasury, so that recommendation about childcare was one that we did manage to get through. For the record, this was the one recommendation that was too much for the system to bear.
Al Carns
Perhaps that is why we are not taking it forward now.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence heavily subsidises rents. There have been suggestions that the Defence Housing Service could borrow private finance off the balance sheet if it was a housing association rather than a public body. However, expert advice from the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others confirms that is not the case. The exclusivity of the defence housing purpose and the scale of MOD payments mean that such financial arrangements are not feasible.
Equally important, and close to my heart, is the welfare of service personnel and their families. Evidence presented to the defence housing strategy review team revealed that local commands exercised significant discretion to support personnel in a plethora of difficult circumstances, such as bereavement. That welfare-based discretion is a cornerstone of armed forces culture, and moving housing management to a third-party provider could put it at risk, undermining this vital welfare function. Finally, the planned housing renewal programme demands very close working relationships with military commands to ensure that it supports operational effectiveness rather than undermining it. Such close collaboration is not realistically achievable through a private or third sector body.
David Reed
I refer the Minister back to amendment 16 on the line of accountability. He makes the point about adding an extra layer and removing accountability from the Minister for the Armed Forces. Does he not see that that is the point that we are trying to make? Making the CEO for DHS report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces would give him an unfiltered view, so that he can do this work on bereavement or the state of housing. This direct line of accountability would give him that power.
Al Carns
There is some confusion here. The Minister for the Armed Forces does not deal with the housing, the people or the welfare; he deals with the operation and policy output. There is a clear understanding of that. Amendment 16 refers to
“ the Minister of State for the Armed Forces”.
That is the wrong role, so the amendment is wrong.
Let us just stick to the point. The board itself will be accountable to the Secretary of State. That is the cleanest way to provide a sharp and crisp command and control model, and to allow the Secretary of State to make sure that the board, which has family members on it, provides the best service. Let us not misunderstand some of the ranks, roles and responsibilities within defence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 8 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 Chair
Good morning. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the Parliament website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped 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 that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a vote.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful. I may ask for it to be recited back to me.
Clause 30
Local connection and service declarations ceasing to have effect
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 30, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), omit from “and except” to the end;”.
This amendment and Amendment 9 correct amendments of section 201(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 so as not to introduce a requirement for regulations made by the Electoral Commission to be made by statutory instrument. Such regulations are subject instead to procedural requirements under Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause 30 stand part.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Samantha Dixon
I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.
Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.
The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.
Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—
“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Seniority of electoral registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.
By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Anonymous registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.
As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.
Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Pre-election applications for registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 33 sets out in law a clear and unambiguous deadline to register to vote in advance of a poll. Subsections (2) and (3) set the deadline at 5 pm, 12 working days before a poll. That brings the deadline forward by seven hours from the existing deadline of 12 working days before a poll. We believe that is the right thing to do for electors and administrators. It creates consistency by aligning the 5 pm deadline with other citizen-facing deadlines, including absent vote and voter authority certificate application deadlines. It will also allow any queries or issues with a registration application to be effectively addressed within the working day by electoral administrators.
Subsections (4) and (5) introduce a power for the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make regulations to change the deadline for elections that they have a responsibility for. In doing so, they might consult the Electoral Commission. Regulations must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 34 repeals unique requirements for additional documentary evidence to always be provided by anyone trying to register to vote just before an election, even if the chief electoral officer is confident of their eligibility based on the data held. The current late-registration requirements in Northern Ireland require that additional documentary evidence to support an application to register must always be provided by anyone trying to register just before an election, even if the routine data checks carried out by the chief electoral officer provide a clear address and identity match.
The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him. That allows him to be confident in the identity of the vast majority of people making applications to register to vote. Therefore, it is necessary to request supporting evidence from applicants only where the data check is not clear. The repeal of these requirements will make voter registration easier for many people. In particular, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for many younger electors who may have fewer forms of documentary evidence than those over 18.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Electoral identity card issued in Northern Ireland: month and year of birth
Samantha Dixon
Clause 35 allows for a change to the electoral ID cards that are produced by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will enable the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to produce a card that is sufficient to meet a narrower electoral requirement and will prevent misuse.
By moving to a system where cards display only the month and year of birth, we maintain the electoral requirement of the card, while also relieving pressure on the resources of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will ensure that electoral ID cards are used for their intended purpose of facilitating participation in our democracy. It will allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to focus its limited budget on delivering effective and secure elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Regulations as to registration etc: information to assist registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The clause will support EROs with their duties to maintain complete and accurate registers, and facilitate the implementation of other clauses in the Bill related to direct registration, such as clauses 17 and 18. Clause 36 has two main effects. First, it will clarify the level of access that EROs should have to local authority datasets, and secondly, it will build the legislative framework to allow data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs.
On the first point, EROs currently have powers to access data from local authorities, or anyone providing services to that authority, to enable them to discharge their duty to maintain a complete and accurate register. However, in some cases, they face barriers to accessing the data they need. Local authorities interpret the extent of access they can provide in different ways, which creates an inconsistent picture of data access for EROs across the country. To address that, subsection (2) amends an existing power to clarify the rights of EROs to access local authority data to support electoral registration processes.
I now turn to the second impact of the clause. We know that there are opportunities to make better use of citizen data from across the public sector, including in the electoral registration space. The clause also includes a new power to enable better data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs. Subsection (3) introduces that power, which provides the legal basis for regulations setting out specific data-sharing arrangements and further data-sharing agreements. Given the importance of the clause to implementing clauses 17 and 18, I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Edited register: electors to opt in
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.
The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.
An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.
Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.
This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.
Samantha Dixon
As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 38 and 39 deal with returning officers. As Members will know, returning officers play a central role in delivering elections and maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Their decisions carry significant legal and operational responsibility. Returning officers rely on the support of local authority officers to support the effective and efficient running of elections. That is particularly important where constituencies cross local authority boundaries.
Clause 38 ensures that all local authorities in England and Wales are required to make their officers available to support the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections that fall wholly or partly within their area. That removes any ambiguity about local authority support responsibilities to returning officers, and helps to ensure that elections are administered smoothly and consistently. It aligns the position in England and Wales with the existing statutory arrangements in Scotland, promoting a coherent approach across Great Britain. The clause provides clarity and certainty, ensuring that returning officers have access to the local authority officer support they need in order to deliver well-run and trusted elections.
Clause 39 ensures that those appointed as returning officers are senior officers within their authority, with the experience, authority and accountability needed to manage complex electoral activity. In Scotland, the clause requires a senior officer to be appointed as returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, with provision for a designation where a constituency spans more than one council area.
In England, equivalent seniority requirements apply for returning officers at local elections, including those administered by London borough councils and the Greater London Authority. By ensuring that returning officers hold appropriately senior positions, the clause strengthens accountability and supports the effective administration of elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to start of the Bill.
Clause 40
Timing of proceedings for nominations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 40 makes changes to the deadlines for submitting nomination papers to returning officers at elections. Currently, nomination papers may be delivered between 10 am and 4 pm on any day in the period for submitting nominations, including the final day. Under the proposals in the clause, at a UK parliamentary election and at Northern Ireland local elections, nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer between 9 am and 5 pm on any day of the nomination period except the last day, and between 9 am and 12 noon on the last day for submitting nomination papers. The change will therefore provide greater flexibility for political parties and prospective candidates when submitting their nominations.
As indicated, the clause will also move the deadline to submit nomination papers on the final day earlier, to midday. The deadline for making objections to nominations at UK parliamentary elections is set at 12 noon, except in relation to nominations delivered on the last day, for which the deadline will be 1 pm. That will allow returning officers to begin printing ballot papers earlier, and so reduce pressure on printing and delivery of postal ballot papers.
Alongside the planned forthcoming change to the postal vote application deadline—to be made by secondary legislation, and detailed in the Government’s strategy for elections, published last July—the adjustments will provide additional time for electoral administrators to process postal vote applications and to prepare and issue postal ballot packs, while still ensuring adequate time for candidates to submit their nominations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.
Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.
We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.
Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In one of our evidence sessions, we heard clearly from a KC who said there were almost no examples of personation prior to the introduction of mandatory ID. We also heard, quite alarmingly, that about 1.7% of people—potentially enough to swing an election—were turned away at polling stations under the current system. Clearly, this is about getting the balance right. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly feel that the balance is currently right, given the evidence we heard in that session?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman’s figures are slightly wrong. It was 0.8% of people who were not able to vote at the last general election due to being turned away without identification.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the official figures, but we heard from election volunteers that they believe that the official figures are not accurate, because that is only the people who made it to the clerk’s desk. They saw lots of evidence of people being turned away at the door because they were arriving without identification.
Paul Holmes
With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.
Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.
Paul Holmes
I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.
The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.
Samantha Dixon
To respond to the question’s from the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, we are currently finalising the details of the proposals, to make sure we strike the right balance between security and accessibility, and we will set more details out soon.
We anticipate that the candidate ID check will be different from the voter ID check. Voters show ID once, at the ballot box; candidates are in the public eye for weeks. If somebody attempts to mislead the public, there should be multiple opportunities for scrutiny, but the new checks will add an early safeguard that does not currently exist.
Later today, we will discuss our views around identification for those coming to the ballot box, but this important step forward for the nomination process will prevent people from disrupting our democratic process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.
Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.
Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.
Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.
We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.
Paul Holmes
We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.
Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Police contact form
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—
New Clause 56
“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance
(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.
The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.
New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.
The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.
Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.
The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.
The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.
However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.
In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.
Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.
Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.
We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.
Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.
Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.
Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?
I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.
If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.
I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it.
New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are. Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning.
New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance. The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.
Samantha Dixon
I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.
Paul Holmes
I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:
“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”
We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.
I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 46 removes the unnecessary and outdated requirement for polling station staff to call out the name and elector number of a voter when delivering a ballot paper. This change will bring Northern Ireland in line with practice in Great Britain. This practice can be intimidatory and unwelcome for voters, and its removal is in line with the Government’s wider commitments to tackle harassment and intimidation in the democratic process.
Calling out is also unnecessary given the requirement to produce photo ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland. This change will apply to all elections in Northern Ireland. The clause will also make some technical amendments to ensure that legislative references to the corresponding number list are correct. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Voter identification requirements
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“, and
(iii) shows when the card expires (see also paragraph (1NA)).”
This amendment and Amendment 11 provide that a payment or cash withdrawal card can only be used as voter identification if the card shows when it expires and has not expired.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“(iii) is issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in connection the issuance of the bank card, which is recorded on the individual’s credit file, and visible to other lenders.”
This amendment would ensure that only bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment would be able to be used as voter ID.
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Clause stand part.
New clause 19—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 22.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak to clause 47 before turning to Government amendments 10 to 13. I will then respond to amendment 30, tabled by the Opposition, and new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. We believe it is unacceptable for legitimate voters to be prevented or discouraged from voting, and any barriers to voting must be addressed. While we believe it is appropriate to retain the requirement to show ID to protect electors from the risk of personation, the current voter ID rules are too restrictive. Research has consistently shown that between 2% and 4% of electors report not owning a currently accepted form of ID, and thousands of electors have been recorded being turned away from polling stations due the policy.
Clause 47 will amend the voter ID rules to allow the use of UK-authorised bank cards at the polling station. These are widely held and our research estimates that allowing their use will bring the number of electors reporting not owning an accepted ID to under 1%. This significant step will greatly improve the accessibility of this policy and support democratic participation.
The clause will also make changes to modernise the legislation with regards to digital forms of ID. The measure will require that any digital ID must be verifiable by a visual inspection feature in order to be accepted at the polling station—for example using a digital hologram. All currently accepted digital IDs have such security features. This change will ensure that any new digital ID without such a feature will not be accepted and so not create a new route for electoral fraud. Finally, this clause amends existing and creates new powers to make regulations relating to voter ID.
Together, the measures will ensure that our elections continue to maintain a proportionate voter ID check to prevent the risk of personation, while allowing a greater proportion of legitimate electors to more easily meet the voter identification requirements and engage in our democratic system.
Government amendments 10 to 13 ensure that only in-date bank cards are accepted as Voter ID at the polling station. Allowing UK-authorised bank cards to be used as voter ID will allow a greater proportion of legitimate electors in Great Britain to more easily meet the voter identification requirements, particularly newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds. However, improving accessibility and participation in our elections must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain their security and integrity.
An in-date bank card is likely to be kept carefully by its owner and unlikely to be discarded or given to others. However, unlike an expired photographic document, which is unlikely to be usable by anyone other than the legitimate owner due to the photograph, there is a risk that an expired bank card might be discarded, given away, or not noticed missing by the owner, as it no longer poses a financial risk. It therefore makes sense for photographic ID on the accepted list to continue to be able to be used as voter ID after it expires, so long as the photo remains a good likeness to the individual, but for a bank card to need to be in date in order to maintain the security of the policy. The amendments will make that change.
The amendments will also allow that if further types of non-photographic documents are added to the list of permissible forms of ID in the future, the same requirement that they be in date can be imposed. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld.
I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Clause 47(3), which refers to the treatment of digital forms of bank cards, says that, in digital form, they are a specified document and valid for ID purposes
“only if a person can form a reasonable view about whether it is a specified document by means of visual inspection alone.”
That is a significant burden to place on a polling clerk, the returning officer or another election official—the paragraph does not specify who that person is—to determine whether, when an individual shows them an image that may or may not be that person’s bank card, which is not required to contain a photograph or anything like that, it is the genuine article. Particularly given the significant growth of online banking, does my hon. Friend agree that that opens to door to this supporting impersonation in a way that would constitute electoral fraud?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.
I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?
Paul Holmes
Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.
The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
While the majority of young people already possess a bank card, they may not have other forms of ID like a driving licence or a passport. Does the hon. Member think that allowing a bank card will encourage more 16 and 17-year olds to participate in the electoral process?
Paul Holmes
I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024.
In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.
Sam Rushworth
I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation.
I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.
I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Let me indulge in an example. The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive man; he has knocked on a door in Hamble Valley on 2 May ahead of the local authority elections on 7 May, which he has talked about. At that point, the deadline for registering for the free ID has passed. The person who he has visited might have been busy—they might be in their early 20s working shifts—so they were not aware of the option to get free ID and that window has passed. In that circumstance, the bank card might be the only ID they have. If the hon. Gentleman does not allow that to be presented, they may not have the option to vote for his party’s candidate on 7 May. Does he accept that that is a problem?
Paul Holmes
No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.
Andrew Lewin
The hon. Member is right to call us friends, but let us be honest: we are unusual people who were involved in politics at a young age. That perhaps reflects many of us on the Committee. I ask the hon. Member again to reflect on the example of a busy shift worker. Their door was knocked a few days before the election. They cannot get the ID. They were not aware. Does the hon. Member accept that he has not quite addressed that challenge?
Paul Holmes
No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated.
Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. He has probably seen, like I have, leaflets from all the political parties represented on this Committee that tell people what form of ID is acceptable way before we even get into the election period or the election date is just around the corner. Does he agree that there are multiple touchpoints for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for when they cast their vote?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.
Paul Holmes
I will give way briefly; then I want to finish my remarks. This will be the last intervention.
Warinder Juss
I have a quick question. We have a crisis in democracy at the moment in that there are not as many people going out to vote as there should be. Should we not be making it easier for people to vote, rather than more difficult?
Paul Holmes
Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause.
As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country. Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud.
We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged. They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of his constituency, but I have looked at the data, and there have been only three convictions in a six-year period in all elections. Now, that is three convictions too many, and I agree that we need to increase security, but can he not see that going from a system in which literally nothing is needed to vote to a person needing to acquire their neighbour’s bank card to vote in their name is a significant added measure of security, and that it might bring three down to zero?
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote.
Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt. On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate.
I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it. I urge the Minister to change her mind before we get to the final stages of the Bill.
Lewis Cocking
I rise in support of Opposition amendment 30, and I will make some comments new clause 19 as tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The biggest thing that puts votes at risk is to keep changing the eligible ID on the list. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley about the different names that can appear on a bank card. We are yet to hear from the Government what name would need to be on a bank card—would it need to be the person’s initials, their surname, their first name, or their middle initial and surname? That will make it very difficult for clerks and polling station staff to adjudicate in busy polling stations.
If guidance comes out and says, “You need your first initial and your surname. We won’t accept anything else,” that will be confusing for people. People will turn up with bank cards that are not eligible under this system. The Government are trying to make it easier for people to cast their vote by not safeguarding democracy and not requiring ID. That will create confusion.
I do not see how we have come to the conclusion that we should put bank cards on the list. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other forms of ID were considered when she sat down with her officials and said, “I know what we are going to do. We are going to add bank cards to this list.” What other forms of ID were considered, and what was considered not appropriate? I think that is a fair question to the Minister.
We also heard from the shadow Minister about electronic bank cards, which will be a particular issue when people turn up to the polling station and polling clerks need to check them. When I did telling at polling stations before people needed photographic ID to vote, most people turned up with ID anyway, and most people I spoke to were shocked when I told them that they did not need ID. The fact that voter ID has added integrity to the process, and that most people now think voting is more secure, is a good thing. I do not support new clause 19, which would be a step backwards in that regard.
We can all play our part in enabling people to access free voter ID. The hon. Member for Ashford suggested earlier that 16 and 17-year-olds might be put off voting if they did not have ID, so why have the Government not come forward with a programme to give out free voter ID at secondary schools when people are registering to vote? That would be a way to solve some of the problems that he thinks may come out of the Bill. The Government could be doing that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about younger people, but what about the older end of the spectrum? My mother decided that she would give up driving at the age of 84, last February. No longer being behind the wheel of a car was a sound decision for her and probably for most of the people in the local area, but it means that she has given up her form of photo identification.
My mother has voted in every election in which she has been able to; it is something that she finds particularly important. She is not particularly up on online banking or digital banking, but she has a physical bank card and is happy to use it. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give my mother, who is very wary about spending lots of time applying for passes and does not have photographic identification?
Lewis Cocking
We will not stray into the issue of online banking, banking hubs and high street banks, but I have some sympathy: I have family members who do not want to do online banking. The hon. Lady’s mother can get a free voter authority certificate from the council, or she could choose to vote by post, and then her signature would be checked and verified by the council. There are two options for her to pick from. I do not understand why we think this is so difficult.
As I said when intervening on my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I have seen political leaflets from every party represented on this Committee showing what forms of identification people need. That is before we even get to the election day, and way before the deadline that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned regarding the voter authority certificate. Voter ID has been in place now for a number of elections. I have been turning up at polling stations since the legislation came into place, and in all those hours I think one person did not have ID—and they came back with it later in the day.
As I said in the evidence session, I question the data that is being collected. It is not clear that we are capturing the data on whether people come back later in the day with their identification. It was also mentioned that people get turned away at the door and might not even make it to the clerk’s desk. How many of those people come back? They will not be captured in that data. Voter identification is a good thing, and I am extremely concerned that we are watering it down. As I said, the Government are putting people who work at polling stations in a very difficult position, because it is not clear what type of name—first name, initials or surnames—needs to be on the bank card. We will have more disputes under the new system that the Government are trying to introduce than we have under the system that we have now.
Lisa Smart
It will not surprise anybody that I am not in favour of amendment 30 and will speak in favour of new clause 19. Before I get into that, I will speak briefly in favour of clause 47 and Government amendments 10 and 11. If we have voter ID, it should be as wide and as accessible as possible, so I will not speak against those provisions.
Lewis Cocking
What the hon. Lady has just outlined has no effect when it comes to a provisional licence, which is photographic ID.
Lisa Smart
The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.
Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.
New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society.
This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better. Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that.
We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed.
I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right.
I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.
We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.
I want to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.
We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.
There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.
Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is
“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.
That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.
For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.
During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are
“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”
The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that
“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”
She was also right when she said:
“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]
We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.
I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.
Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.
Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.
I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that
“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”
That is the point.