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

Alex Norris Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

But it is the system. I am going to move swiftly on now. A number of Members have indicated that they want to take part. I call Alex Norris.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q The key test in clause 1 for the action of a decision maker is whether it

“would cause a reasonable observer of the decision-making process to conclude that the decision was influenced by political or moral disapproval”.

Are you content with the phrase “reasonable observer”? Do you think it is tight enough? Could it be clearer?

Jonathan Turner: Yes. “Reasonable observer”, or “reasonable person”, is used throughout English and Welsh law and so on. It is the basis of the law of negligence. You interpret contracts with reference to how they are understood by the reasonable person. In legislation, similarly, and in lots of other documents it provides an objective test, instead of looking at the subjective intention of the maker of a statement. That has the benefit of greater certainty and greater clarity, which is why it is used.

I am very happy with it being the formulation that is used. I do not think that there is any problem with it at all; I think it is the best way of doing it. You would have terrible difficulties if you tried to do things in terms of the subjective intention of people adopting the decision.

[Alex Norris]

Q So can we have confidence in it as essentially a term of art that will be easily understood by the courts and is not likely to lead to a series of cases based on whether or not one is reasonable? Is that likely to be tested?

Steven Barrett: It is not likely to be tested, because it is quite a settled test. It is a legal mechanism for taking subjectivity and turning it into objectivity, which is what law does—and which is why when I speak in public on law I have the unique and remarkable opportunity to annoy everyone. It is an acceptable test and I would not worry about it. The courts are familiar with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

To use the same approach I advocated for the previous question, if the two other witnesses want to concur with or dissent from the response that Mr Timms gave, could they say so and perhaps raise any additional points that they think would be helpful to the Committee?

Yasmine Ahmed: Yes, I wholly concur with what Dave said. I would just add that first, as Dave noted, it has to be illegal. Fossil fuels, not necessarily the extraction of fossil fuels, are not illegal—that has been well covered. What about a situation where there are dual considerations? We see many situations where deforestation happens, for example, and there are attacks on indigenous communities and human rights defenders. What happens then? Is that caught by the Bill or not? As I mentioned, there is a litany of other human rights abuses and international crimes that are not captured by the Bill, so the exemptions are certainly by no means exhaustive. The very point that I would argue is that the Bill cannot, because the whole point of the Bill is to stop public bodies being able to carry out their due diligence responsibilities effectively.

Peter Frankental: I concur with Dave, but I want to add one point on the exemptions. The vast majority of cases reported of companies abusing human rights are not litigated—they are not subject to civil or criminal litigation; they are exposed by the media or by non-governmental organisations—so the exemptions defined in terms of breaches of law are unlikely to apply and no public body would feel confident in using the exemptions unless there has been a legal case. In so many jurisdictions, the law either is not in place or there is corruption or weak regulatory systems. The independently commissioned report on modern slavery by Frank Field, Baroness Butler-Sloss and Maria Miller drew attention to the very weak regulatory systems in the UK for implementing the Modern Slavery Act, so any reliance on the law will put public bodies in a very weak position.

[Alex Norris]

Q To build on that point, we have heard very strongly from panellists that you do not believe that the exceptions in the schedule to the Bill will protect environmental concerns. We have previously heard from the Government that they believe that it does. Assuming that that is their intent, how would you bridge the gap between what is on the face of the Bill and what is said to be the intention of that exception? Are you saying that it is irredeemable, which I think was the point that you made, Yasmine?

Dave Timms: You could increase the scope of that exemption, but you would still be left with all the problems that have been pointed out. You could have the environmental misconduct exemption extended to any environmental issue or any issues surrounding environmental harm, or include anywhere that there is a breach of international environmental treaties or agreements, but that would still leave you with the problem that Yasmine pointed out: the fact that in so many cases, environmental problems are related to human rights abuses. Look at logging in South America, where there is a high degree of overlap with human rights abuses; you would not be able to do it. You also would not be able to deal with the problem you have in clause 1, which is that any activity from civil society would be dragged into this as well. Often environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth will campaign around concerns that overlap the environment and human rights. You might be able to chip away at the damage, but it is really hardwired into this from the start.

We have some experience of dealing with the kind of language in clause 1, which talks about a “reasonable observer”, because it is really similar to the chilling effect caused by the language in electoral law that bites on third-party campaigners, where you must have regard to what is reasonably intended to influence voters. That has had a huge chilling effect, which has been documented by parliamentary Committees, on the activity of civil society in campaigning on legitimate issues around election periods. We have seen language like this: it has been drafted in a way that is vague, and language similar to this has been shown to have a chilling effect on the activities of legitimate civil society organisations trying to achieve legitimate aims.

[The Chair]

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

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

Alex Norris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Felicity Buchan]

Thank you, Chair.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Thank you to our witnesses for their time. In opening, you were very clear, Jon Richards, about what your job is and what your job is not, and I think the Committee will have taken some comfort from that. Do you feel you need extra tools or controls do that job?

Jon Richards: I do not think we do. I think we think that the level of regulation of the LGPS is also already very high. You will have seen that the Government have just introduced a whole series of additional pension consultations, which we have to do—which poor Jo has to deal with and spend a long time on. Again, we think there is significant regulation. We have a regulator and we have a clear fiduciary duty. Trustees have clear responsibilities, including training responsibilities. They have a clear understanding of what should be done. There is a need for improving governance, and we have been doing a lot of work on that, including training. We have also tried to issue guidance on the need to be clear that, if there are challenges, or attempts to move people away from the fiduciary duty, we need to drag people back to that, and they should not be diverted by some of the political games that are potentially out there.

[Alex Norris]

Q You mentioned legal challenges. Could you say what your anxieties are there?

Jon Richards: There is some wording in some bits of the Bill. For instance, it talks about being substantially “influenced”, a “reasonable observer” and “moral disapproval”. There is a series of phrases. These are very open, vague phrases. It is a lawyers’ charter. It really makes it difficult for us. We have already seen an increase in the number of legal challenges around this issue. You can see the pressures around a whole series of environmental issues. We face a whole series of pressures. Every new regulation, particularly if it is as openly worded as this, potentially makes it more difficult for us to deliver our fiduciary duty.

Jo Donnelly: Could I add something to that? The concerns about the judicial review and the court processes, in particular, are quite key for us, because it does appear that there could be dual running, effectively—enforcement action from the regulator alongside an interested party potentially bringing a judicial review or a High Court claim. The definition of an interested party is something that we would like to be clearer—for example, whether they need to be a scheme member or a local taxpayer. Some kind of clarity around the definition of who that could be would be helpful.

There is a real concern about the possibility of a local authority having to deal with a regulator investigation as well as a High Court claim. If a High Court claim was brought, that would be the first point of action. Normally, a High Court claim would be the end point; it would be the last resort. In this case, it could potentially be the first part of action, so the courts would be undertaking an investigation that we do not think would be helpful for them or the local authorities that are the subject of the action. That is a key concern for us as well.

Jon Richards: Can I add one thing, please, Chair? There is another issue about statements being made by particular people. If someone makes a statement, say, during a pensions committee meeting, and it is minuted, it is not clear whether the challenge is against the pensions committee, or the individual or whatever. There is some wording about the dangers of someone expressing themselves in a pensions committee meeting, and the potential impact of someone taking a challenge against the whole committee. Again, there is very loose and worrying wording for us.

[The Chair]

Q Before I bring in Chris Stephens, can I ask something? Of the various options for dealing with that problem that you mentioned, which do you think is likely to be the most effective?

Jo Donnelly: What we would like to see is a change in the Bill that would lead to the judicial review option or the High Court claim being possible only against the decision of the enforcement authority. Effectively, the decision that the regulator makes is what can be then challenged in court, rather than the decision—the alleged breach of the law—by the authority in the first place. Ideally, it would proceed as relatively normal, which is that a decision of an enforcement authority is what is challenged in law, rather than the original decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Q Just a point of clarification: the Bill only prevents decisions being made on the basis of moral or political disapproval of states as opposed to banning fossil fuels or environmental matters. It does not cover that.

Councillor Jamieson: I am speaking personally here. This is not an LGA view, just to be clear. I think the principle of this legislation is absolutely fine and, in many ways, helpful because it enables people on a pension committee to be very clear that they cannot consider countries when looking at this. However, my caveat is that there are some details in the regulations that need clarifying and those are quite concerning. It is not the principle but some of the details and we just want to make sure that some of those are right.

[Alex Norris]

Q I would like to start by putting on record the thanks of Members of the Opposition Front Bench to Councillor Jamieson for his leadership of the Local Government Association. It is safe to say that it is a broad family of all parties and none, so that leadership in a single person is an exceptionally tricky job and I think you did a very good job of it. As I say, we are grateful for your leadership and your candour with us when we have asked you questions in the past. Thanks again for your and Councillor Deering’s presence.

We speak a lot in this Parliament about transferring power from here to local communities, namely our local councils. The Bill very much transfers power from our local councils to this place. How do colleagues in the local government family feel about that?

Councillor Jamieson: Thank you very much for your kind words. As I should have mentioned in my little statement a moment ago, I am very vexed—and was very vexed as chairman of the Local Government Association—by the underlying trend of giving powers to local government with one hand and taking them away with multiple hands. I can genuinely understand why it is being done, but I do not like the fact that it is another example of central Government just eating away at the freedoms and devolution of local government, but there are far more contentious areas than this one in which I would argue that the Government have taken back powers.

Councillor Deering: My view is very similar. I do not know that in Hertfordshire we feel particularly that this is a power grab from us; I think we understand the rationale of the Bill, or the proposal. If we had more experience of problems in the area, maybe we would feel differently, but I think we would say that we are fairly relaxed about this.

[Alex Norris]

Q Clause 4 will restrict your ability not only to act, but to talk about whether you would have been inclined to act. That is quite a significant fetter on your free speech. How do you and your colleagues feel about being told by central Government what you can and cannot say?

Councillor Deering: My answer is very similar. Again, it could be because our experience of problems arising is quite limited, but we are broadly relaxed about the point that you are making. We can see the overarching objective of the proposed legislation.

Councillor Jamieson: This was one of the areas of detail about which I had a concern, because I think it only right that in a committee meeting people should be free to express views. The key question is what the decision of that committee is. That is what should be held to account, rather than the views that are expressed and rightly debated in the meeting.

We have two concerns. One is about the freedom to express those views in an appropriate manner during the meeting. The second concern is that we publish minutes of meetings. If those minutes faithfully record what somebody has said, would that breach the rules on expression of views? Those are two details that need to be sorted out, because we do want debate in a meeting. People should be able to express their view; the point is that when they come to make a decision, it is the decision that should be held to account, not what people said in the meeting.

[The Chair]

Six members of the Committee have indicated that they want to ask a question, so I will initially confine them to one question each. I am sure that members of the Committee have enough intellectual flexibility to be able to get everything they want to find out into a single question.

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

Alex Norris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Just a reminder that this panel is due to conclude at 2.30 pm and I have three more Members who have indicated that they wish to contribute. If anyone wishes to contribute, please waggle your fingers at me. Do you want to add anything further, Dr Harris?

Dr Harris: Briefly, I agree with Dr Mendoza. The justification here should be the limitation of vires—of the powers—of these bodies. That is the way to justify clause 1 for me. The justification is not, “Get behind Government policy” or “Do not make these moral or political statements”: it is vires and powers. We can come back to that in further questions.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have just one question, about clause 7, which governs the information notices—the mechanism by which the Government can compel information from public bodies to find out if they have made, or are about to make, a decision that would contravene clause 1. In clause 7(8), those notices override any obligation of confidence, so if it is a conversation between someone and their lawyer, the Government can compel that information. That seems to me to be a very strong power. What is your opinion?

Dr Harris: My reading of that, on its face, is that it would be something like the whistleblowing protection, whereby a whistleblower is exempted from duties of confidence to their employer. Without more, it would strike me as extremely unlikely that this would override the privilege between a lawyer and client.

[Alex Norris]

Even though it says “any obligation” on the face of the Bill?

Dr Harris: Yes.

Dr Mendoza: I have a slightly different response. I am slightly perplexed by the question. What were you thinking that was so secretive and furtive in nature that would even require a lawyer/client confidentiality level? We are talking about a simple foreign policy discussion, not about someone’s secret actions.

[Alex Norris]

Q What I would say is that you would know, as a local authority councillor, that local authorities routinely take legal advice about their actions, certainly if they thought they might be an edge case in such legislation. On a fair reading—I would be delighted if I were wrong—this would permit the extraction of such information, which we would normally consider privileged, by dint of a Government information notice, and I wondered if you felt that was proportionate.

Dr Harris: It is important to note that it does not say that the enforcer can demand information that is confidential. All that happens is that the person disclosing will not be liable if they breach a right of confidence. It is not a right to extract the information, or a power of the Government; it is simply a freeing from liability of the discloser.

Dr Mendoza: I would agree with that reading. It says:

“A person providing information in compliance”,

so I think that is the correct reading of that clause.

Dr Harris: There is one, perhaps related, problem for me. Clause 4 states:

“A person who is subject to section 1 must not publish a statement”,

and that can include statements of intent or hypothetical intent. Consider, for instance, a university governing body—senate or council—making a decision about divestment. Let us say that there is a meeting, there are minutes and they are kicking ideas around. They may well benefit from a degree of those deliberations not being public.

The problem I have is that my understanding is that an FOI disclosure would constitute publication. If you look at section 79 of FOIA, it is explicitly called “publication”. This body would be in a position whereby it would say, “Well, we have to comply with FOIA, because we have to disclose, and if we do disclose, we may be breaching the law by publishing a statement whereby we say that we intend to act in a certain way.” It is a drafting point, I think, but that needs to be cleared up. We do not want over-defensiveness in these deliberations by public authorities.

Dr Mendoza: I agree. That is an interesting technicality that probably should be taken note of by the Committee.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q I have a question for you, Dr Mendoza, and then a separate question for Dr Harris. The Henry Jackson Society, the organisation that you represent, is described as being

“focused primarily on supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia”.

Does your organisation in any way support divestment in China, particularly regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims?

Dr Mendoza: I would say, on that point, absolutely. The position that we adopt with China is very simple. I believe that you have a witness who will be able to tell you about the experiences of her family, her relatives and, indeed, her people in what are effectively modern-day concentration camps, to the point that many among us believe that the Chinese Government are practising genocide against this particular group in Xinjiang. If we look at what is actually happening there—the eradication of their culture, the imprisonment of people for forced labour and that sort of activity—on that basis, we are essentially talking about modern-day slavery. You will be aware that the Bill will be superseded by modern slavery actions and the UK’s sanctions regime on this. Yes, we do believe that there ought to be accountability from the Chinese Government on this score, and I personally would not be buying things from Xinjiang province.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Qaisar]

Q Is that a concern that you have? Richard Hermer KC has raised concerns that UK courts would potentially have to rule on the legality of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Stephen Cragg: Yes, because there are competing views on that. If there are competing views, local authorities might want to seek a view from the courts on whether their view is correct. It is then all up for grabs in the High Court and beyond after that—something that the courts have tried to avoid getting embroiled in.

[Alex Norris]

Q You mentioned the use of regulations for setting the fining regime. That is a common theme of this Bill. It also allows the Secretary of State to vary the schedule that sets out the important exceptions to the Bill and to vary enforcement authorities. That is a theme of the Bill. Do you think that those things and that degree of reserved power for the Secretary of State should be on the face of the Bill, or are they proportionate and necessary for the effectiveness of the Bill?

Stephen Cragg: What the Bill does is give very wide powers to the Secretary of State to change lots of aspects of this—which countries are involved, which conditions and the like. The concern when you have secondary legislation powers is always, “All right, this Government might not use them in a way that you would not agree with, but Governments down the line may use the powers they have here to mould a system where countries that they agree with are excluded under the Bill, and countries and issues that they do not agree with are the ones that things will be focused on.” There is always a concern about that. In something as important as this, it seems to me that that should be on the face of the Bill; it would give me a lot more reassurance as a lawyer if it were on the face of the Bill.

[Alex Norris]

Q Secondly, to finish the points you made in a fulsome way on clause 7, for my own clarity. You are saying that you would have greater confidence in the provisions in clause 7 if it was on the face of the Bill that privileged information between clients and their legal representation was exempted from that information-gathering power?

Stephen Cragg: Yes. I read out the terms of clause 7(8) and it seems to say that there is no restriction on the information which can be requested, as far as I can see. If that is not the Government’s intention, it is simple to put that right.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Francis Hoar, Professor Andrew Tettenborn and Professor Adam Tomkins gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Felicity Buchan]

Q Do you not think it is needed for community cohesion? These statements can be very inflammatory.

Francis Hoar: Yes, of course they can, but as Professor Tettenborn said, that does not stop councillors making them on the campaign stump, and it does not stop the Mayor making them in a personal capacity. I am afraid I do not find that a convincing argument at all.

[Alex Norris]

Q I want to follow that point through, with all three panellists, if possible. You have all indicated support for the Bill in generality, and in particular for what clause 1 tries to achieve. Do you think you have to have clause 4 for the Bill to be effective?

Francis Hoar: I have answered that.

[Alex Norris]

Yes, I think you have addressed that point, but what about the two professors?

Professor Tettenborn: I must admit that I am a little more friendly to clause 4. I will tell you why. It comes out in the old saying that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. Sorry, that was a bit flippant, but if you have a statement by a large number of councillors, “We really don’t like it. We’re not saying that we might disinvest from it, and we’re not saying that this is going to influence what we do, but you realise what our views are,” that is going to come across to a lot of other people as being very much the same thing. I gather that that was what this particular clause was getting at. I confess that I am a little less happy about conditional statements, but if a person says, “We would like to do it—okay, it’s illegal, but we would like to do it—but we are not saying we are going to do it,” I think there is a strong case for saying that they should not say that.

One always has to remember that, as Professor Tomkins pointed out, this is not something that criminalises a statement. Basically, something can only happen to you when you make a statement once you have been warned—once you have received a notice: “Oi, don’t say that again.” Now, you might want to challenge the notice or whatever, but that is a relevant feature of the legislation. It is a feature that I find attractive, as against the rather fierce legislation that they have in quite a lot of American states.

[Alex Norris]

Q Professor Tomkins, could you address that point?

Professor Tomkins: I will make two quick points about clause 4, if I may. First, in my career I suppose I have worn two hats: one as an academic lawyer and the second as a practising politician. What you have heard from the other two witnesses on this panel are legal responses to clause 4, and there is nothing wrong with that at all—I do not mean that as anything other than a compliment—but perhaps a political response to it would be to remind this room of politicians that, in these matters, it is not just what happens that matters: it is also about the optics of what happens, particularly with regard to the undermining of community cohesion.

The Jewish community in Scotland—which happens to be a community that I know rather well, for personal reasons—is a very small community. It is a community that is very easily frightened, not necessarily by things that are done, but by things that are said. If we are serious about protecting community cohesion, and I think the Government are serious about that, and they are right to be, and if we are also serious about maintaining the integrity of British foreign policy, we need to be careful about what is said by people in their official capacities—not as private citizens but in their official capacities. For those reasons I am much more enthusiastic about clause 4 than most of your other witnesses have been.

With my legal hat on, I am certain that there is not an article 10 problem here, because clause 4 is targeted at speech that is uttered only by officials in their official capacity and, moreover, is targeted only at a very narrow range of potential statements, which are statements with regard to procurement decisions and/or investment decisions, rather than, as we heard in earlier sessions, statements that are in their generality critical of Israeli policy or, indeed, of British policy with regard to the middle east. For all those reasons, there is not a legal problem with regard to clause 4, but there is a political imperative behind clause 4, and if I had a vote on the matter, which I do not, I would vote for it enthusiastically.

[Alex Norris]

Q On multiple occasions on the face of the Bill, the Secretary of State has reserved powers to change provisions in the Bill by regulations. Do you think that approach has been used too liberally? Has it been used appropriately? Are you comfortable with that degree of ability for the Secretary of State to vary things later down the line?

Professor Tomkins: I think I am. It is always a delicate balance between what goes into primary legislation—what goes on the face of the Bill, as we say—and what can be done after an enactment by Secretaries of State or Ministers, using the various powers that are crafted by the Bill. The balance that has been struck in the Bill is appropriate and reasonable—yes, I think it is.

Francis Hoar: I think it goes too far in some respects. Generally speaking, Parliament has been too ready—this goes back over many decades and is certainly not just the case under this Government and in this Parliament—to give the Government powers to give devolved legislation, particularly with Henry VIII powers, which the Government accepts there are in this case. I think Mr Cragg KC mentioned the unlimited power of the Minister to order the maximum financial penalty, and there is good reason for the House of Commons to restrict that to a particular maximum.

The particular concern I had was that although, wisely, the Bill does require advance scrutiny of the regulations, there is an exception in clause 3(2) and (5). The Government have given a good explanation as to why they may wish to add a country or territory to the list—the approved list or the disapproved list, whichever way you want to look at it—because, of course, Russia might invade Ukraine, and that is an obvious example. But they have not provided any explanation—certainly not a credible explanation—as to why we need clause 3(2), which includes adding, removing or amending a description of a type of consideration that can be taken into account by a local authority. There is absolutely no reason why that would ever be so urgent as to be needed without the advance scrutiny of the House of Commons. So clause 3(2), in my view, should not have an emergency provision. In clause 3(5), there is a very good reason for that; if the Bill is passed, one accepts the principle, and if one accepts the principle, these things should be able to happen.

Professor Tettenborn: I am entirely with Francis on that one. Certainly, the power to add countries actually is, again, quite skilfully guarded. I think people around this table will have noticed that it is subject to affirmative resolution—that is, it cannot pass merely by everybody not noticing when it is placed on the Table and not objecting to it; it cannot pass by inertia. I think that is a very sound part of the Bill indeed.

[Ms Qaisar]

Q Thank you to the panel for joining us today. I want to stick to clause 4, because I was really interested in the discussions on it. Some stakeholders have called it a gagging clause. I am really interested to learn what other options the Government could bring forward to achieve the clause’s aims. It is my understanding that if a Scottish Government Minister, for example, wanted to speak out against it, they would be unable to do so. They would have to turn around and say, “I’m not speaking on behalf of the Scottish Government, I’m speaking as an individual,” even if they were stood in the Scottish Parliament.

Francis Hoar: I have answered this fairly fully, but I think that that encapsulates why I am not convinced about clause 4, although I agree with both my colleagues on the panel that it is not likely to be disproportionate, because it falls within the earlier Strasbourg/French authority. These are public bodies, and there is a good reason why it would be proportionate to restrict them, but you have encapsulated why the provision is pretty useless: because all the Minister needs to say is, “I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government.”

Now, I can absolutely see the logical reason why it is a good prohibition, because it is right, on the view of the Bill on this panel—although not among all your other witnesses—which is that the general objective is a sound objective. If that is right, it is fair enough to prevent Ministers in Scotland or Wales from making those sorts of pronouncements. But, in reality, what is it going to do? It is just going to mean that, basically, I will say that I am going to speak in a personal capacity.

Incidentally, on the drafting of the Bill, I am not entirely clear—I agree, again, with Mr Cragg on this—as to the relationship between clauses 4 and 1. Purely from a drafting point of view, that needs to be made clear. If the Government are suggesting that that should not apply to an individual speaking in an individual capacity, there is no reason why the Bill cannot say so. I am just not clear. The wording of clause 4(1) is that

“the person intends to act in a way that would contravene section 1”.

I am not convinced that it applies only if that person has been given a notice. As Andrew said, I do not read that from the Bill. I am not entirely clear what that means. It needs to be clarified as a matter of drafting if clause 4 is to stay.

Professor Tettenborn: I would like a clarification there as well, I must admit. It seems to me that there may be quite an important difference between someone who makes a pronouncement and someone who says something and adds, “but I am speaking personally.” That concerns how we are viewed abroad. It is very good for the conduct of the foreign relations of this country that people abroad know that they can deal with the UK Government as a UK Government. They obviously know that there will be people who disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, but I see nothing wrong in saying that if an official is going to do that, it might be a good idea if they said, “I am speaking in a private capacity.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Up and down the country, communities are struggling with the Tories’ mortgage crisis and the cost of living crisis. Those hit hardest often live in communities that were promised levelling-up funding, yet the Government sit on £1 billion of promised levelling-up fund money—money that could make a difference to those who need it most. Where on earth is it? Will the Government commit today to starting a process for the allocation of it?

[Dehenna Davison]

I find myself a little confused, because we got a lot of criticism from the Opposition about round 2 of the levelling-up fund. They wanted us to get round 3 right, and we are taking the time to ensure that we get round 3 allocations right. We will, in due course, announce details on how we will allocate that money, which will change people’s lives.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Alex Norris Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to close this challenging but important debate on behalf of the Opposition. The debate has covered Britain’s place in the world, freedom of speech, human rights, genocide and a whole range of other important topics.

At the heart of the debate lies a central question: does the Bill balance legitimate, strongly held and well-meant desires to challenge behaviours overseas on principled grounds against important protections for particular nations or regions in the face of disproportionate treatment? I am afraid the answer is no.

We believe there should be legislation to frame boycott and divestment-type activities—legislation that allows communities to decide where their money goes—in response to human rights or genocide concern, while ensuring such decisions are made equitably and consistently so that the world’s only Jewish state, for example, is not singled out and targeted. This is consistent with our long-held stance against the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.

Colleagues can have confidence that we believe in such framing legislation, because the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and I tabled such amendments to the Procurement Bill in Committee, some months ago, and on Report. The amendments were rejected by the Government, but the Bill tabled in their stead, the Bill before us, is considerably worse than the option we offered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) called the Bill a “dog’s dinner.” He is generally not a man to disappoint, but his sentiment was one of disappointment, which was echoed in the remarkable contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who spoke of the frustration of those, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who want to see legislation that the House can unite behind. We do not have that currently.

There has been a range of other excellent contributions. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), referenced clause 3(7), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond). This subsection breaks the distinction between the state of Israel and the occupied territories, which is a significant change in Government policy, and it asks significant questions about our compliance with UN resolutions. The Minister must account for that change of policy and assuage some of those concerns in her summing up.

The right hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said that foreign policy matters of this nature are not for local decision makers. Well, we do not think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made a very strong argument about how it has worked and been effective in his community in the past. In a bolder argument, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) rightly said that it is our communities’ money. I, like many colleagues, am a member of the local government pension scheme—that is our money; and I am a council tax payer—that is our money. It is not unreasonable that we might want to have a say in how it is spent.

[Nadia Whittome]

This Bill is anti-democratic and anti-human rights. It frustrates peace efforts in the middle east and it is an obstacle to social justice everywhere. As such, it has been condemned by a huge range of civil society organisations, including trade unions, charities and faith organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree with them and with me that for those reasons the Bill must not receive a Second Reading?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, I think that what has been striking is that colleagues who come at this from very different places and parties have reached that conclusion of the inadequacy of this legislation. I hope the Government will reflect on that. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) asked what our alternative was. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made a powerful contribution, but I slightly challenge his suggestion that we were saying that we should rip this up in an unspecified way. That is not the point we are making. We are saying that we tabled an amendment to the Procurement Bill that we think is better. If the Government think it is technically inadequate, we would be happy to work with them to improve it. What we do know is that it is much better than what is before us today.

My hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made important points about what this Bill does to the devolved regional and national settlements—it challenges and presses them greatly. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made powerful anti-BDS cases. I hope the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and I have taken on that assuages some concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford is my friend and we should always be honest with our friends, so let me say that he has done peerless work in this place on tackling the persecution of Christians abroad and he should have real concerns about how this legislation would fetter such activities in the future.

I will cover some more of the contributions as I get through the rest of my points, but certain concerns must be addressed by the Minister in her closing remarks. First, which of the two possible readings of clause 1 do the Government intend? Does the “territorial consideration” provision mean that not wishing to procure from Xinjiang is unacceptable but that not wishing to procure from the entire nation of China would be acceptable? Or does it mean that all actions of all foreign Governments are beyond the scope of local decision makers? How, at this stage, can it be satisfactory that there is ambiguity? As we have heard, this is legislation that will head straight to the courts. Secondly, to accept clause 3 is to exalt the Secretary of State ahead of any other public representative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. It is to set aside the mandates of the Mayor of the West Midlands, the Mayor of Greater Manchester or of the leaders of councils in favour of the Secretary of State. It is to give that person, whoever they may be, sole arbitration of human rights abuses, of genocide. That should give all of us pause, but it is worsened by clause 4, the gagging clause, which my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

We heard a powerful and compelling contribution from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, about pernicious political thinking behind this Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has happened multiple times? We are talking about a smackdown on democracy. We had the so-called “gagging Bill”, which was about gagging charities and became the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014; in 2016, we had the wrapping up of trade unions in even more red tape; and, recently, we have had more attacks on trade unions and the right to protest. Are the Government not crushing dissent on the part of any organisation or body that wants to challenge them?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend almost reads to the end of my paragraph, so I will address that point presently. The point on gagging clauses was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), and the hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The Bill means that not only does the judgment of the Secretary of State supersede any and all local leaders, but the Government seek to ensure that those leaders are not even allowed to talk about their desire to challenge human rights abuses or not to consume settlement goods. The Government are taking away not only the right to act, but the ability to speak. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) says, that is consistent with a legislative programme designed to whittle away at the civic space, with the Trade Union Act 2016, the 2014 Act, the Public Order Act 2023 and more. What we have in front of us is an unacceptable fetter on free expression.

Separately, but no less importantly, the Bill will, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, have consequences for billions of pounds in local government pension funds. Any hard deadline that is imposed on them to change their operations in accordance with new law could be deeply destabilising, and the Minister ought to talk about how much she has looked into that impact. We know that at the moment a pension fund makes a divestment decision on a financial ground that relates to territories named in the Bill, that decision will be challenged in the court as a moral judgment. That will bind up our pension funds in court case after court case.

Let me turn to an issue that has had little airing in the debate so far and will have a lot more to run. Through clause 7, the Bill permits extraordinary powers to compel information—powers that demolish long-held legal privileges. It is not proportionate to hand to the Secretary of State even stronger powers to compel information from public bodies than the security services have. Surely the Government see the unsustainability of that position. As detailed by Labour and other colleagues, these are weighty concerns that make the Bill unacceptable in its current form.

But there is an alternative, as covered in our reasoned amendment. Our country has a proud history in the development of modern international humanitarian law, from the ashes of world war two to the creation of the United Nations and the role that we continue to play on the world stage. We have always defended the fundamental and inalienable rights of all human beings. It is vital that procurement decisions made in respect of such rights are then applied across the board to prevent unethical actions against specific states and to ensure that common actions have the greatest impact. That could be readily achieved by requiring public bodies to produce a document that sets out their policy on procurement and human rights, and for that to be developed in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. That would ensure consistency in how contracting authorities decide on such matters.

What would that suggestion mean in practice? The practical effect would be to make it clear and unambiguous that if a public body does not wish to procure goods from Russia because of President Putin’s abhorrent human rights abuses in Ukraine, the law will be on its side. If that same body does not wish to procure services from Xinjiang because of the appalling treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the law will be on its side. But if a public body acts only against a particular state—let us say the world’s only Jewish state—while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses elsewhere, such actions would be illegal. We offer this workable solution to the Government and I hope the Minister picks it up. If colleagues do not hear that in the Minister’s response, I encourage them to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Co-operatives and Alternative Businesses: Local Authority Support

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Labour and Co-op Member of Parliament and because my wife is the assistant general secretary of the Co-operative party.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for securing this debate and for her leadership of it. She started by saying that there is a great need and enthusiasm in this country to move to more local models and away from top-down planning to local delivery. That was really on the money, as was her point about the huge input that the co-op sector already makes to our economy. She also referred to the frankly unrealised potential of the sector, which I will talk about shortly. However, as the theme of the debate is the role of local authorities, I thought it was wonderful that she pulled out examples from across Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Birmingham and her borough of Hackney where local, regional and sub-regional leaders are taking ownership and putting co-ops at the heart of their local economy and their local economic development.

I believe, and this came through in what my hon. Friend said, that we are at a co-op moment. We are showing that leadership is local and developing, but that needs to be matched—perhaps this is a theme of today’s debate—with a national commitment.

My hon. Friend was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who, in my head, is synonymous with her 100-plus appearances for Wales in squash, as well as with the co-operative movement in Wales. She listed a number of people who have been the backbone of that movement, but she ought to have her place in that pantheon. I knew that she would not disappoint us and would talk about the Marcora law, which is particularly germane to today’s debate.

Whether a Member is from the north-east, like the Minister, from the east midlands, like me, or from south Wales, like my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), a common theme is that, in recent decades, we have felt the huge loss of businesses, industries or enterprises that are at the heart of our community, and we know the absolute hole that that creates. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath, building on the Italian example, suggested a way that we can perhaps fill that hole and stop that happening. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on that. Whether she is addressing the current Government or a future one, my hon. Friend will continue to press that case hard. In giving the example of Cwmpas, she made a case—this was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley—about the impact of support and input at a national level to help different models of enterprise to develop, and that that can be highly effective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley picked up on that theme by talking about the work of the Welsh Government and Cwmpas. However, what I also took from what she said is that the co-operative economy and co-ops’ place in the economy are as a deliverer of really important social programmes. She mentioned net zero and energy, as well as the cost of living and tackling poverty. I believe that co-ops are at the root of tackling those challenges, which is why I am a Co-operative Member, and that local authorities should act as a facilitator. I associate myself with everything that she said about Tyrone O’Sullivan. I know that a lot of pain has been felt by Welsh colleagues at his passing. For all the reasons she mentioned, his place is very much in a co-op debate, and I am glad we have had the chance to recognise that.

I will make a couple of points of my own. Efforts to support the growth of co-ops and alternative businesses are vital, because we know the difference that those business forms can make. Co-operatives, for example, put economic power in the hands of local people, and ensure that the benefits of economic growth are felt by those who help to create it. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on that, because I think that is what we are talking about with levelling up. I know that, perhaps politically, the Minister is not co-operative, but I suspect that she is by instinct. I am interested to hear her views.

Co-ops are grounded in shared values that put communities, members and workers together in the driving seat of a fairer, more ethical way of doing business, where issues such as paying a fair share of tax and protecting our natural environment are at the core of how things are done. Co-operatives are good not just for those who depend on them, but for business. They are shown to be more resilient. Co-ops are twice as likely to survive the first five years of trading than other start-ups. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, they are more ambitious, with 61% expressing a desire to grow, as opposed to 53% of businesses more generally. Where workers and members of the co-operative have a true stake and say in the success of business and, crucially, have a share in the rewards, they are more productive.

So co-ops are resilient, ambitious and productive—qualities that we so badly need in our economy, especially in these uncertain times, and also to smooth out and avoid uncertain times in future. As colleagues have said, this is already working, with 7,000 co-operatives across the country turning over around £40 billion a year. We believe that the sector can grow and that its benefits can be felt more widely by more people.

This is about a change of focus from economic growth built around low-paid insecure work that does not ride out economic uncertainty well and is concentrated in certain regions of the country. Instead, we are talking about an “everyone in” approach, providing grassroots growth, created everywhere, by everyone, for everyone, but that will not happen by chance. Colleagues have used good examples of where it has worked well. At the root of that, there has been a degree of national, regional, sub-regional or local leadership, and it requires that proactivity. I hope we will hear some of that in the Minister’s response.

For our part, we as the Opposition have an important ambition, shared with the Co-operative party, to double the size of the co-operative sector, to help build that sustainable growth. Colleagues will also have seen that our local power plan was announced by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday. Co-operation lies at the heart of that plan, which will put money and power—literally and figuratively—into people’s hands. We believe that when more people have a say and a stake, and greater ownership of the issues and decisions that matter to them, the balance of economic power shifts back in favour of people and communities—and my goodness, do we need some of that!

We have heard that local authorities and local government are taking a lead across the country. We have also heard from colleagues that local elections saw a record number of Labour and Co-op councillors elected. There are more than 1,500 such representatives across 80% of local authorities, so the case is being made at a local level more and more. However, we need to see that matched at a national level. When the Minister makes her contribution, I will be interested to hear what work her Department is undertaking, not just to support co-ops and alternative businesses in the here and now, but going forward, in terms of its ambition and belief for the sector. On levelling up, if there is anything the Minister could deliver in her role, it would be to help those sub-regional bodies—perhaps combined authorities and mayors—to deliver ownership hubs. There is clearly enthusiasm to do that.

What more help does the Minister envisage giving local authorities to ensure that they can play their role? There has been a pattern over the past decade or more of not prioritising alternative models. It has been the same old models delivering the same old outcomes. As a result, we have pent-up potential—we really need to realise that—and that plays out in Government focus and in a policy and regulatory framework that often inhibits the development of alternative models.

I hope that the Minister has heard, in contributions from colleagues and me, about the ambition and the potential, and the difference that it would make to the UK economy to unleash co-ops. We see the local leadership of this, and we now need to see some national leadership to match it.

Teesworks: Accountability and Scrutiny

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to close for the Opposition in this debate.

Let me start by bringing us back to first principles. The Mayor of Teesside himself has requested a National Audit Office investigation into the Teesworks joint venture. That is backed by the Chairs of three parliamentary Select Committees. The Opposition, as hon. Members have heard, support it. The media support it. The only people who disagree with this are Ministers on the Treasury Bench and their Back Benchers. The purpose of the motion and the debate is to establish why the Government have taken the eccentric course of rejecting an NAO-led review. Is there a sound public policy reason or is it a partisan decision?

My colleagues have made very strong cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) set out in significant detail the pain the north-east has felt over 30 years of austerity; I would have thought that Conservative Members would have reflected on that, but they did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) reflected on the region’s potential, which makes that pain doubly saddening. My hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) raised a range of very serious questions that simply must be addressed by a review that everybody can have confidence in.

I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about journalism and the courage of those various journalists who have taken this issue on. Despite all the criticism they have had from the players involved, they have stood up, done their job and shone a light on the issue, and we are having this debate today in part because of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) set out an extraordinary, deep and detailed case, worth listening to by those colleagues who have sought to shout him down, both today and previously. He has shown incredible courage, knowing what is right for his constituents and doing what is right for his community when it would have been easier for him not to. There will have been days when he got out of bed, knowing the barrage that he was going to face, and it would have been easier not to, but he has too much courage to do that, and I salute that.

I turn to colleagues on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said it was inconvenient that we were bringing this motion today. I understand that, but I gently say that it is for the Opposition to ask the questions and for the Government to answer them—they cannot ask the questions as well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) hit the nail on the head when she said that the Mayor has asked for this audit. It is not so unreasonable that we should ask for such an intervention when the Mayor himself has done so.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) asked, as did the Minister in his opening speech: why are we departing from established practice? This is the first time such a thing has happened. We have never had such an incident involving an elected Mayor or a mayoral development corporation. Of course whatever we do will be a new and novel approach, because we have never done it before. Falling back on false equivalence simply does not work.

I turn now to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who made a bombshell contribution to this debate when he made it clear that he was basing his decision today on the discussions he has had with civil servants and the advice they were able to give him as a Back Bencher—advice that he knows we have not had any access to. At the root of the motion is the point that we need to know the information that is clearly available to some but not to others.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that Ministers have not been advised by the civil service that the threshold has been met. That is a matter of public record. It is in the letter the Secretary of State sent to Ben Houchen at the end of last month and it was repeated by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box during his opening remarks. Ministers have been advised by the civil service that no such threshold for a best-value investigation has been met. That is not our view; it is the civil service’s view.

[Alex Norris]

I chirped during the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier contribution to ask him how he knew. I took from that—if I am wrong, the record will show otherwise—that he had had those conversations. Frankly, I think that that muddle is at the root of the issue.

Of course, this issue cannot be decoupled from the Government’s supposed commitment to levelling up the country—a commitment on which, as has become increasingly clear over the past 18 months, the Government cannot and will not deliver. We have seen a levelling-up White Paper which talks more about a Medici-style renaissance that a real commitment to our communities; a bodged levelling-up fund that locked deprived areas out from getting the money that they need; and much-heralded levelling-up directors quietly canned even though they were supposed to champion the revitalisation of our nations and regions. What a waste. What a waste of the pent-up potential of our regions, towns and cities which is waiting to be unleashed if only the Government were serious about delivering on their promise. Once again from this Department, it is all press releases, no delivery.

Teesside was supposed to be the flagship, the proof of concept, which makes the concerns expressed today all the more crucial. If this is what levelling up is, who benefits from it? Who is it for? The questions keep mounting up, as colleagues have said. Reports in the media outline how millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have supported a project in which two private developers now hold a 90% stake despite seemingly never having entered a competitive process, and how those developers have taken significant dividends, outsizing their investment in the project. People rightly wonder how that has happened, who sanctioned it, whether value for money has been delivered, whether these concerns are legitimate, and if so, why has it taken dogged reporting on the issue, and colleagues in this place, for them to come to light?

Those are crucial questions that require answers, but rather than call in the National Audit Office, as the Mayor himself asked for, the Secretary of State has chosen to set up his own review, set the terms of that review and appoint the panel himself. We are now in the ridiculous situation where a flagship Government project that is facing serious allegations of failures in accountability is subject to a review set up and appointed by the Government themselves, and we are told that that will give the public the reassurance that they need. How can the Secretary of State expect the public to have confidence in that process? It is no wonder he did not come today and stand up for it, and instead sent the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), whom I hold in high regard, into an impossible situation.

Let us face it: the Government are on their way to court for a statutory review that they themselves set up, because they are doing anything they can to avoid being candid in it. Now, they ask us to trust them and put our confidence in a review that has not even those safeguards and powers, and they are surprised when we, the media and the public say that that is simply not good enough. We have waited for the answer today; it has not been forthcoming.

It is critical to public trust that the Government are transparent about the decision making that led to this process being adopted. The motion before us seeks to do just that by calling on the Government to release correspondence and communications pertaining to the decision not to order an independent NAO-led investigation and instead to commission their own review. For the sake of public confidence that all decisions have been made in good faith, and with the express intent to get the answers that the people of Teesside deserve, the Government should be open about how they reached their decision. That is all the more important because this does not relate to Teesside alone; it is the first project of its kind, with far-reaching implications for Mayors, combined authorities and development corporations. We need to know the truth now so that we can learn the lessons later.

The Government have had the chance today to establish a credible public policy reason why the Mayor’s own self-referral to the NAO, supported by everyone but the Government, was rejected. We did not hear any such reason from the Minister; we heard false equivalence about processes pertaining to different public bodies. Unless the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) takes this opportunity to change course, we must use Parliament to compel the release of the information behind the decision. We must vote for the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Nearly 18 months after the publication of the levelling up White Paper, instead of meaningful levelling up, all that we have is disorganisation and disappointment. The levelling-up directors were supposed to cut through the dysfunction to help areas obtain the support that they needed, and it was announced with great fanfare that there were nearly 600 applications for those roles. But as with everything this Department does, it was all smoke and mirrors, because the roles have now been quietly dropped and no levelling-up directors are to be appointed. Will the Minister come clean? The Government have given on levelling-up directors because they have given up on levelling up, have they not?

[Dehenna Davison]

Absolutely not.

Voter ID

Alex Norris Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Colleagues will have been dismayed to learn that fewer than 90,000 of the up to 2 million people without appropriate ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. Voter ID has always been a solution in search of a problem. Millions of pounds have been squandered on this process, and we now find that hundreds of thousands of people have had their votes taken off them. The Minister talks of experts, but all the experts—the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association—begged the Government not to introduce voter ID for the May elections because there was not enough time. Ministers did not listen, and this is the consequence. The sole accountability is theirs. We wait to be shown the scale of this travesty; that is rightly a role for the independent review, but the review will work only if it has the correct data.

Last month, during oral questions, I raised the point that many returning officers intended to use greeters outside polling stations to turn away those without ID, and that those turned away would not count as having been denied votes. That is deeply wrong, and not acceptable. The Minister did not address this point in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so let me press her again. Whose advice is right? Will people who are turned away by someone outside a polling station who asked whether they had appropriate ID count as people who have been denied a vote, or will they not?

[Rachel Maclean]

I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman has sought to rehash arguments that we have already had numerous times in this place, and I find it surprising that his party is not committed to protecting the sanctity of the ballot box. The reason we have had to introduce this legislation is the absolute fiasco that we have seen unfolding in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham over the years. We need to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, and that is what we are doing. We are introducing a number of measures to collect the data that will enable us to conduct the detailed analysis that is required by the legislation and by the electorate, and that is the right way of doing things.

May I ask why, if the Labour party is so opposed to voter ID, it requires ID for all its candidate selection meetings? Why have Labour Members stated time and again that they know full well that most people in this country have a valid form of ID? What is good enough for candidate selection in the Labour party should be good enough for our local elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am told by the Association of Electoral Administrators that some returning officers plan to use greeters at the front doors of polling stations to check whether people have the correct ID. If they do not, they will be turned away. Currently, those who are turned away will not be logged as having been refused a ballot on the grounds of a lack of ID. Such a person will be logged only if they make it to the main desk and are refused there. That is totally daft and will, of course, completely skew the data for the independent review. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. Will she commit today to correcting it?

[Dehenna Davison]

We know that about 98% of electors have the right identification. We have put additional funding into rolling out our information campaign so that people know what identification is required. It is right that local authorities take whatever measures they can to ensure that people have the right ID. Ultimately, we are confident that this will not reduce voter turnout.