Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

Clause 16 creates an equivalent duty to raise awareness and provide assistance to the duty created by clause 15, but with reference to Northern Ireland instead of Great Britain. The difference is that this duty applies to health and social care trusts instead of local authorities. That is simply a reflection of the bodies with responsibility for social care and care leavers in Northern Ireland, and so ensures that the duty will work in the same way across the UK. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the duty created by these clauses will provide targeted and invaluable assistance to people who may need it, thus helping ensure that no one who is eligible to cast a vote loses out on being able to do so.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation in response to my earlier questions. Clause 15 says that a local authority

“must take the steps the authority considers necessary”.

One of the challenges with that is that young people will be placed in different areas of the country. The Bill gives rise to the possibility of significant inconsistency. One local authority may take the view that there need to be special arrangements for the young person to be taken to the polling station to cast their vote, or that particular arrangements are necessary for a postal vote to be exercised by someone whose station is further afield. Another authority may take the view that simply giving them a briefing note explaining it would be sufficient. Both of those sound like they would meet the test set out within the Bill.

Can the Minister set out what guidance there may be, either from her Department or from the Department for Education, to ensure that there is a degree of consistency, so that there is equality of access for young people in the care system? That is especially important where the placement they may be in is effectively controlled by a third party. For example, how will there be appropriate measures in place to ensure that a young person in foster care—particularly given the “Staying Put” policy introduced with cross-party support by the last Government, which enables those young people to stay as care leavers with a family with whom they have been fostered—has an equality and consistency of access to both the registration process and the physical ability to cast their vote?

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

Some people will be automatically enrolled who have chosen, under the current system, not to be on the electoral roll, but it is a question of fairness. If we are not having that across the country, all at the same time, it will create an unfair election result. As I understand it, it will be up to Ministers to choose whether they do it by age, by location or by demographic. If everyone is not enrolled at the same time, one could arguably gerrymander, because one could pick people based on who they are likely to vote for at the general election.

I do not think we need automatic enrolment, but if the Government are going to push forward with it, they could at least say, “We are going to make the next generation fair in terms of auto-enrolment, and we are going to do it for everybody, all at the same time, across the country for the next general election.” If the Government are worried about capacity to do that, I suggest that what is needed is more time. The Electoral Commission might say that it needs more time to do it, so it would have to happen at the next general election after that. As I have said, they could do pilots based on council elections, as long as the whole authority is covered by that pilot.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that we heard about the pilots in Wales? Auto-enrolment was implemented, and when that data was verified, a significant number of voters fell off who should never have been on the roll in the first place. That indicates that there is a risk that auto-enrolment distorts the electoral position at local authority or parliamentary constituency level by adding people who are not eligible to vote. It creates two risks: one is, as my hon. Friend has described, boundaries being drawn in a way that does not allocate people’s votes equally; another is that people will be offered the chance the vote when they are not eligible to participate in that election.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.

--- Later in debate ---

As part of the pilots, we will be testing the reliability of different datasets and new approaches to registration, such as direct registration. The specific detail of the pilots will be set out in secondary legislation. Ahead of the pilots, we have already begun to explore different datasets to ensure that we have the best possible data and to enable us to identify someone’s entitlement to be registered to vote.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister is addressing the pilots and how they will be learned from. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out some broad concerns about the risks to the integrity of the ballot of taking an inconsistent approach, whereby different groups of electors may be targeted for auto-enrolment in different local areas, such that we end up with inconsistency.

Another risk is around identity theft and fraud. For many people, a place on the electoral register is the start of obtaining credit or sometimes of applying for a job or benefits. I am very conscious, as I am sure we will all be from our constituency case work, that getting behind those kinds of fraud and identity theft can be extremely expensive and difficult. For example, a person may apply to go on the electoral register at someone else’s property without your permission. That person may not be genuine or even exist, but under this system, unless a response comes back saying that they do not wish to be added to the register, they will automatically be put on it. That opens a new avenue for fraudsters, and particularly identity thieves.

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister therefore set out what consultations there have been with colleagues across Government about evaluating the risk of identity theft that this provision creates for our constituents?

[Samantha Dixon]

I simply suggest that the piloting, with the work of the EROs and the access to the datasets that establish the right and the eligibility to vote, are testing precisely the point the hon. Gentleman is making about avoiding election fraud. That is the purpose of the pilots.

[David Simmonds]

It is not so much about election fraud off the back of this; it is more about somebody getting themselves on the electoral register and applying for a credit facility. One thing the credit provider will check is whether they are on the electoral roll. That person may not exist at all, but because of auto-enrolment they are now on the electoral register, as a result of which they obtain credit. That opens up the risk of fake registrations, which we already hear about from trading standards. It would be helpful to understand what consideration the Government have given to that risk, particularly given the impact it has on vulnerable households among our constituents.

[Samantha Dixon]

The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.

EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring full transparency and integrity following any changes is even more important at the moment, given that the integrity of our electoral system is being called into question, including by some parties represented in the House of Commons that say that we cannot rely on the fairness and integrity of elections under the existing rules? Does he agree that the avoidance of future challenge and dissonance relies on this Committee’s being clear what the changes we are being asked to vote on mean in practice? If we cannot be clear with the voters about what this means for them, we should not be doing it. We should be coming back later when we can be clear.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend refers to the recent judicial review. My understanding is that, rather than losing the judicial review, the Government actually offered no defence. They conceded because they did not wish to be transparent about the decision-making process that the Secretary of State had followed. Subsequent freedom of information requests sought to get under exactly what was happening, but clearly there was correspondence that the Government did not wish to place in the public domain. They preferred to abandon their devolution plans rather than concede on that point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a great starting point for a Government who are asking us to take them on trust about pilot schemes with a complete absence of detail and no indication of who would be prioritised for auto-enrolment, what the geographical basis would be or what the decision-making process would be? It is not a good basis for asking us to take them on trust when the Government have not been willing to be transparent about elections that they were determined would go ahead, only to cancel them within literally 24 hours.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I say, this Minister is a Minister of integrity, but I find this out in opposition. I work for a shadow Secretary of State; the Minister works for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has been found to have said things in the Chamber that have turned out not to be the case. It is therefore not right for the Opposition to have confidence that we can rely on a reassurance from the Minister that the pilots will not be used to amend the franchise.

The wording of amendment 28 is so clear that there is no room for manoeuvre. Why does the Minister not accept the amendment and show us that her reassurance is worth the paper it is written on? The amendment would not fundamentally change the passage of the Bill or the parameters of the pilot, but it would provide reassurance that the Government will not use the pilots and whatever comes out of them for a reassessment through the Electoral Commission. We do not know the parameters of the pilots; their geography, as my hon. Friend says; who will be included in them; or the datasets that will be used. The Minister should accept the amendment and give us reassurance that the pilots will not be used to change the franchise.

The Opposition have repeatedly asked and challenged Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State when he took office, about whether local elections would go ahead. The Secretary of State then tried to stop those elections. We know why the Government did not want anybody to see the evidence or the correspondence. It was a pattern that this Government have shown before: putting their own political interests before the interests of the electoral system and before having a credible plan or a credible defence. That is why they were found out. That is why when I looked the Secretary of State in the eye and asked whether he would cancel the local elections, he said he would not—and then he did, on a Thursday morning when he would not get the scrutiny that he deserved from a full House of Commons.

[David Simmonds]

On the pattern of behaviour, the Minister has set out very clearly that the Government wish to rely on the independent Electoral Commission to appraise the outcome of the pilot schemes. But what we do not know—because the Government are not willing to set it out to this Committee, which it is asking to approve the principle of the pilots—is what it will appraise those pilot projects against. We do not know at this stage what the Government seek to achieve through the pilot projects. We therefore cannot assume that the Electoral Commission is in a position to give us the genuinely independent perspective that we expect of it.

Historically, there has been much debate about whether the Electoral Commission should be given a mandate by Parliament. One useful thing about such a mandate is that it would be able to say, for example, that a criterion for appraising pilots is the use of equality impact assessments to determine the impact of the pilots on people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, on younger voters specifically, and on younger voters with learning disabilities, who may be a subset of such voters. Without any clear sense from the Government of what the pilots will seek to achieve and how that will be implemented consistently, it is difficult for the Committee to be confident that the pilots will genuinely contribute to the integrity of the poll.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that in very recent history the Government have completely ignored the view of the Electoral Commission anyway. When the Government said that they would not cancel local elections, and then did, and then got found out in court and did not defend the case, the Electoral Commission said repeatedly that it disagreed with the Government’s stance on the local elections because the Government had not consulted and had breached the general rule that EROs and local authorities should be given at least six months’ notice of a change of poll.

The Electoral Commission was very clear, and I think it went as far as condemning the Government’s decision, but the Government ignored it. The Minister can outline how the Electoral Commission will be consulted, but they have ignored it before and it is very likely—in fact, given the pattern of behaviour of the Secretary of State, it is almost certain—that the Government will find the answer that they want to find, regardless of what the Electoral Commission review says.

We remain sceptical. This is not personal against the Minister. I like the Minister intensely—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I couldn’t think of another word. I like the Minister a lot, and I think she is a woman of integrity, but the pattern of behaviour from this Government is astounding, on consultation, on transparency and, actually, in Parliament. Ministers, who are governed by the ministerial code, have said that they will not do something and then gone ahead and done it anyway, in the cynical way that we have come to see from every Department in this Government. It is rotten from the top down.

On the pilots, the Minister has been clear that the parameters are not well established in the Bill and that she will want to come back with secondary legislation. Clause 20, “Power to pilot changes to the voter registration process”, states that the

“Secretary of State may by regulations make voter registration provision…in connection with…a register of parliamentary electors maintained under section 9 of RPA 1983”

and

“a register of local government electors”.

However, where it says that “regulations must specify”, there are certainly no parameters, and she is asking us to give the Government a blank cheque.

The Minister is asking us to approve pilots without any detail on what they may look like. She is also not saying how she will test whether those pilots are successful. When she winds up, will she outline to the Committee exactly what the parameters are for the pilots and the tests for what looks like success when they are finished?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made the constructive suggestion that we proceed on the basis of local authority areas for the use of the electoral roll in the local poll so that everybody who is standing or voting in the election can have confidence that they will be treated equally. Earlier in our debates, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out her sympathy with the proposal for the pilots, but I am sure that no Member of this House would be content to lose narrowly in an election, only to discover that in their constituency—perhaps alone in the country—there had been a programme to auto-enrol a specific cohort of voters who had not been auto-enrolled in the same way in neighbouring constituencies or in the rest of the country. That would fundamentally call into question the integrity of the poll.

I know that the Government have had serious concerns and reflections internally following the allegations made at the Gorton and Denton by-election. I do not think that most of us accept that those allegations are correct. None the less, the level of doubt that has been cast on elements of the process is of concern to Members across the House. The Government should be in listening mode. They should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and should seek to do this properly, so that all voters and candidates in elections can have confidence that they will be treated equally and consistently across the country.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for not responding to his very reasonable suggestion. If the Minister were to say that she wanted to base pilots across the country on a local authority area, I am sure that many local authorities would jump at the chance to be at the front of delivering it and would work with her to do so. However, it potentially calls into question the integrity of the polls when that is based on a certain characteristic, or on an area that does not necessarily cover the whole area in which people are entitled to vote.

There is a cross-boundary issue with general elections and local elections; my constituency has three local areas with three different EROs within its boundaries. The way in which the automatic registration pilots will go ahead is just not universal. I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.

I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.

[David Simmonds]

Although we do not have a representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee, we have had a number of debates in which a variety of these issues have been raised, and we took evidence on them specifically. The electoral system, registration system and arrangements for elections have been different in Northern Ireland for some time anyway, and that reflects part of the fairly complex political history of that part of our United Kingdom. One of the commonalities that we have with Ireland is the ability of people there to cast their vote in general elections in the United Kingdom and vice versa.

Will the Minister set out—perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me that we need a bit more detail on this—what conversations have happened not just with the Northern Ireland Executive but with the Government of Ireland? A number of provisions mean that the Province, in which people will have the ability to vote as a United Kingdom voter and also, potentially, in Ireland, especially if they are dual electors, will have different electoral rules. It is particularly important that that is fully considered, especially before pilots, which might make further changes, are implemented without the element of local consent.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.

We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.

Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,

“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”

In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.

We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.

I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.

There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?

If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.

[Paul Holmes]

What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.

If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.

The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.

I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.

[David Simmonds]

I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?

[Paul Holmes]

That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.

I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve.

Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people.

Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18.

Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over.

The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.

[David Simmonds]

On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

[Dr Chowns]

I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development.

The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament.

If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.

The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.

The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.

[David Simmonds]

There is a high degree of cross-party agreement on this point, but I have a technical question. The Minister referred earlier to the status of secure accommodation for children. Such an order is made by the family court rather than the criminal court, but it is often handed down when a local authority youth justice team is concerned particularly about the risks of self-harm. Under existing legislation, any child who is in custody of any kind is de facto in the care of the local authority where they reside. Under the terms of the Bill, that local authority then has a duty to support those who may be in secure accommodation to access their vote.

Could the Minister briefly set out what discussions, if any, she has had with the Department for Education, which owns that children-in-care legislation, so that we have clarity about what arrangements would be in place so that a child who is in secure accommodation, of which there is a very limited amount, often some distance from someone’s home, is able to exercise their right to a vote, which they would retain under these provisions?

[Samantha Dixon]

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is quite technical. I will provide him with the details. He is right that some convicted 16 to 17-year-olds, rather than being imprisoned in a young offender institution, are detained in secure children’s homes or secure training centres. Whether an individual is held in a young offender institution, a secure children’s home, a secure school or a secure training centre following conviction is not a direct reflection of the nature of their offence or determined by characteristics such as age.

It is possible for one individual who is convicted of a particular offence to be held in a young offender institution while an otherwise identical individual, who has committed the same offence, is held in a secure children’s home. Accordingly, it is appropriate and consistent to ensure that all convicted prisoners, regardless of their age or the institution in which they are held, should be prevented from voting. I will provide further details in writing, if that is acceptable to the hon. Member.

I thank hon. Members for their support for clause 2 and for the principle, which we are extending to 16 and 17-year-olds, that those held in secure accommodation and prison cannot vote—I think that is a well-understood principle, and it is one that we continue to support—and for their comments regarding new clause 9, which the Government will not be supporting.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member for his support. For attainment at the age of 18, we work with 16 and 17-year-olds, so the two-year rule will continue by convention. If I have anything to say that differs from that, I will share that with him.

[David Simmonds]

This is, again, a bit of a technical question, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and I served previously as lead members for children’s services, and one of the groups for whom this will be particularly relevant is those young people who may be in the care system because they are asylum seekers. My local authority has among the highest populations of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the country.

There are existing arrangements, but at the moment, because the voting age is 18, it is completely clear: someone is an adult in the system and their eligibility to attain their vote depends upon the determination of their claim. However, there is a significant population of young people who have age assessments that are being disputed, or for whom there are issues around where residence may take place and whether leave to remain will be granted, and therefore at what point the individual, not because of their age but because of their immigration or asylum status, will attain the right to vote. What discussions have there been with the Home Office, which owns that legislation, and potentially the Foreign Office, which may have sight of what arrangements are in place in the countries from which those young people may be moving to the United Kingdom, to ensure a degree of consistency and certainty?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member for his question on quite a complex issue. The right to vote is based on citizenship, so I would have to come back to him with further detail on those circumstances. We will come on to clauses that relate to children in the care of local authorities and their rights to register to vote, and to vote, but on that specific issue I think I will need to come back to him.

[David Simmonds]

I am sure that everyone is aware that the arrangements with Ireland, for example, provide a degree of eligibility and commonality, not just in the electoral system but in all sorts of other areas. In terms of enfranchisement, we have eligible Commonwealth voters who may participate in our electoral system by virtue of their Commonwealth status. That does not apply to all countries in the Commonwealth, but it does apply to a significant number of them. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue too, particularly given that we can envisage, for example, service families from the military of an allied country—in my constituency, with HMS Warrior just over the border, we have a significant number of families who come from Canada and Australia and, indeed, Europe—who may be here for a period of time, which would mean that they fall within the scope of this legislation. It would be helpful to understand what arrangements are in place to ensure that they are treated fairly.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will supply the hon. Member with that information, because it also applies to attainers who are living overseas. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Declarations of local connection: looked after children and detained persons

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 4 will ensure that the extension of the franchise works effectively for young people whose living arrangements do not fit the traditional model of a fixed or permanent address. Declarations of local connection already allow certain individuals to register to vote when they cannot reasonably be associated with a single permanent address. However, once the franchise is extended, it is important that young people are not excluded from participation simply because of the nature of their accommodation. The clause expands the circumstances in which a declaration of local connection may be made.

Members should be assured that the provision does not remove any existing eligibility requirements. It enables young people who are looked after by a local authority, who have previously been looked after, or who are kept in secure accommodation to register in a way that reflects a meaningful connection to an area. It is an important measure that ensures that young people in these circumstances are able to register in a way that reflects their living arrangements.

Clause 5 will ensure that the extension of the franchise properly supports service families. Service declarations exist to ensure that members of the armed forces, Crown servants and British Council employees are not disadvantaged in their ability to register to vote when serving overseas. However, once the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, a gap would arise: the children of service voters who move with their families in service would not have access to the same registration mechanism.

The clause addresses that gap and enables children who reside with a service-voter parent or guardian to register using a service declaration. That registration will cease when the individual reaches the relevant age, which is 19 for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections and local elections in England and Northern Ireland, and 18 for Scottish parliamentary elections, Senedd Cymru elections and local elections in Scotland and Wales.

[David Simmonds]

To some extent, I have another version of my earlier question. In respect of children in care, within the provision there will need to be a process for registration and, in due course, a process for the administration of casting the ballot. If we consider the original judgment on prisoner voting, the European convention on human rights does not trump parliamentary sovereignty.

The judgment went against the UK because, at that stage, there were no arrangements in place for prisoners to be able to vote, although the law did not specifically prohibit them from doing so. The court said, “You can’t effectively lock them up so that they can’t get to the ballot box, but at the same time say that they are still legally entitled to the vote; you have to make a choice.” Parliament made a choice and said, “We are going to ban those people from voting.”

The Government have been very clear that young people in secure accommodation will be eligible to vote. We are also aware that those in the 16 to 18-year-old category who are treated as care leavers will often be in what is known as move-on accommodation as they transition from a fostering placement or children’s home to semi-independent living.

What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that, in practice, under the terms of this legislation, those young people are not deprived of their ability to vote by virtue of moving around the country or simply lacking access to the service that they require, as opposed to being deprived of it by a deliberate decision of Parliament as part of the punishment inherent in a custodial sentence?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The response to that is the declaration of the local connection; that must relate to an address with which the individual has a genuine connection, as set out in the Bill. For example, a person experiencing homelessness may register using the address of, or nearest to, a place where they spend a substantial amount of their time, such as a shelter or another place where they regularly stay. Similarly, a young person looked after by a local authority may register using a previous address or one connected to the local authority responsible for their care. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s point.

[David Simmonds]

I understand the Minister’s point in the sense that a young person can register to vote. My question is about the logistics of how the ballot is cast. One of the challenges for young people, particularly in the care leaving transition, can be the instability of placements.

Young people may move around to access the type of accommodation that they need, or they may be placed far from home to get them away from, for example, a drugs gang or a grooming gang that caused them to come into the care system in the first place. Therefore, they will find themselves in a position where, while they may wish to participate under this legislation, the logistics and practicalities of that may be different and, in practice, they may be deprived of the opportunity to vote. It may be a matter for those discussions between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, but it would be helpful to understand what practical arrangements have been put in place to ensure that, if the Government really want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote, they can do so.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Member raises an important point. We have to establish the principle in the first instance and, as we progress with the legislation, we can provide more detail about the practical arrangements. Clauses 4 and 5 establish the principle; we will have to come back to the detail of how we take that forward. It is a complex area, but it is essential that young people in the care of a local authority are not disenfranchised because of that.

Clause 5 is important to ensure that young people in the care of their families overseas, as they give service to our country, are treated fairly under the extended franchise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Further provision about registration and participation in elections

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.

[David Simmonds]

I have another technical question to provide clarification for the Committee. We know that there are different rules for who is eligible to vote in local elections and in general elections—and council elections are imminent—and the Government website sets out those criteria. One of the consequences of this change will clearly be to extend the franchise to a large group of people who do not and cannot currently vote in UK general elections.

A question that may arise for an electoral registration officer is how to establish the age of, for example, an eligible Commonwealth citizen who arrives to register to vote, if their age is not clear. Will the Minister set out what guidance EROs might be expecting to spell out the evidence that might be sought to establish eligibility in terms of age if, for example, a citizen of Poland who has moved to the United Kingdom wishes at the age of 16 to join the electoral register for the upcoming council elections?

[Samantha Dixon]

Let me re-emphasise that EROs are familiar with providing such guidance already. We are simply extending the franchise to a different age group to enable them to participate in UK parliamentary elections and those other elections mentioned. The well-established route for providing that guidance will continue, extended to encompass the newly enfranchised in future elections. This is a well-trodden path, and I am happy to provide more details as required.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Further provision about registration of young voters etc

Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—

“Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011

14A In section 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales), in subsection (6C)(a)(ii) omit “, who has attained the age of 18”.”.

This amendment removes the restriction that certain EU citizens, who are registered in a register of local government electors, need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales.

Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—

“Recall of MPs Act 2015

14B (1) The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 14 (determination of whether recall petition successful), in subsection (3), for “18” substitute “16”.

(3) In section 22 (interpretation), in subsection (3)(b)—

(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “18” substitute “16”;

(b) in that sub-paragraph, for “18” substitute “16”.”.—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment includes 16 and 17 year olds who are registered in a register of parliamentary electors in the calculation of the threshold to be reached to determine whether a recall petition is successful.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7

Prohibition of registration officers disclosing information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Draft Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on the regulations, because they achieve an ambition that we support. Indeed, Katy Bourne was selected some time ago as the Conservative candidate for the new mayoral role and has been campaigning for a good deal of time, in the expectation that the election would take place in May 2026, as per the original timetable.

The fact that we are here considering this instrument, which will be made under Conservative legislation—the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—is an indication of how far behind the Government are on achieving their ambitions for devolution in England. We find ourselves in the position that elections will go ahead in May for councils that the Government are set to abolish, but not for the new mayor, who, it is envisaged, will take over some of their responsibilities. I intend to press the Minister a little on those issues.

The first thing that it will be helpful to understand is the likely cost of the delay. As we know from feedback from local authority leaders around the country, the delays that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has introduced consistently to this process have meant that things like the renewal of contracts to provide children’s social care, adult social care, highways and pothole maintenance—all kinds of different local authority services—have been put in question, because the new authorities do not know when they will come into those responsibilities, and the authorities that currently hold them do not know when they will be abolished. That imposes a cost on taxpayers, causes a degree of uncertainty and bears down on the service quality that can be leveraged through that process.

It will also be helpful if the Minister can set out what interdependencies there are between the draft regulations and the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is yet to make its way through the parliamentary process. There is no carry-over provision for the Bill, so, with Prorogation imminent, the Government will have to undertake significant consideration of what parts of it will make it through, if any at all. Having spent many painful days on the Bill Committee, I am sure that the Minister is no more enthusiastic than the Opposition about the prospect of having to relitigate all the points on the Bill. However, the Bill is designed to create the underpinnings of the role that this mayor will occupy. Clearly, there is significant doubt about the ability to implement those policies, if the necessary legislation has yet to make it through Parliament.

Finally, is the Minister able to say anything about the interaction between these regulations and the Home Office proposal to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner? The Government set out very clearly in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill the expectation that these new mayoral authorities would take on some of the responsibilities of PCCs, but the elections of the new mayors have been significantly delayed, so there will be a gap between the end of the current PCCs’ terms in office and the election of the new mayors, of whom I think this the first to have delegated legislation underpinning their role.

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart]

Q I have one final comment. If Donald Trump took all the assets of his companies, split them between him and his children and moved all the money into his UK-based company, which runs golf courses, there would be billions, or hundreds of millions, of pounds. Given how the legislation is written currently, I think that that company could perfectly legitimately donate to any political party. I would venture to say that the Government do not want that and might think about how legislation could be amended to address that.

Samantha Dixon: We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.

[David Simmonds]

Q I have a brief question about clause 47 on the voter identification requirements. We have heard quite a lot on the point about bank cards. I am mindful that the Government’s own MoneyHelper website sets out how to get a bank card if you do not have any ID at all and also if you are of no fixed address; I know that is routinely used in electoral processes to establish your entitlement to vote in a particular place.

Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?

Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.

[David Simmonds]

Q Just to be clear, the question is about digital bank cards. A lot of people have on their phone an image of a card; they will not have a physical card.

Samantha Dixon: Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.

[The Chair]

Katrina Murray, if you can do it in 30 seconds, you can ask a question.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I know some of the witnesses through non-parliamentary activity. When they sit down, I will explain to the Committee my connection to them.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

Q My second question is picking up on Ms Yule’s point about harassment. It is a very good thing to bring electoral staff into the consideration of that; I think everybody sensible would agree.

From my experience of being involved in elections, there is sometimes a lack of clarity on who to go to with problems—is it the RO or the police? Is there a uniformity in how the law is enforced? Different police forces have different experiences or resourcing levels when it comes to pursuing somebody breaking election law. Can you talk about how you see the Bill addressing any of those issues or about areas where you think it could have gone further or been clearer?

Emily Yule: Some of that is already being addressed in practical terms. There has been a lot of joint working between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the police and local returning officers to make sure that those contacts within police forces are very visible, and that you know how to get in touch and report issues.

Our members still experience a disparity in the level of engagement in different force areas, but we see a commitment coming forward to try to balance that out. There is a critical part around communication with candidates, agents and others involved in the electoral process, so that they really understand. There is a guidance element about when it is a returning officer issue, when it is a police issue and when it is an Electoral Commission issue. The Bill has an opportunity to consolidate that good practice, but it is emerging and we have started to see it coming through in recent elections. As the specific, dedicated officers within police forces build up knowledge of electoral process, offences and issues, that will only increase.

Councillor Bentley: I pointed out the issue of harassment in my first answer, by which I meant harassment of both candidates and officers. Clarity of the law is very important, as is people understanding what is an offence. It is important for the police to have that clarity as well. You do not have police officers here, at least not in this session, but they have a difficult job in working out what is just a disagreement and what is harassment. That happens in elections.

We must not forget that a lot of this will take place and has taken place on social media. We need to make sure that the law is very clear. I am in favour of the harassment bit being in the Bill—it needs to be highlighted. However, we need greater clarity about what is an offence and what is not.

[David Simmonds]

Q There are two areas I would like to explore briefly. We heard a lot from the local government family about the chaos created by elections being cancelled, then uncancelled, and so on. Part 3 of the Bill includes a number of provisions to change the arrangements for elections. We heard about police needing to be put on the rota, then cancelled, then put back on again and schools needing to close, then reopen, then close again because polling was going ahead and then not. What are your reflections on the timeline, the consequences of those changes and the considerations that go with that?

Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required?

Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change.

We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute.

On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it.

Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things.

Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in.

We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources.

Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information.

In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.

[The Chair]

Ms Chowns, we only have three minutes left, so I may not be able to come to others. Please be brief.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.

The Opposition do not propose to divide the Committee on this instrument, but I have some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. One of the challenges with an instrument of this nature is to understand what its consequences will be. We have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill raise a question on behalf of his constituents about what this will mean in practice.

The Government’s consultation on the business rates reset clearly described it as a “redistributive act”. The purpose of it is to take business rates growth away from places that have also had the consequences of developments, allocating it to other areas. We do not have the information in front of us to set out what the consequences will be at a local level, but we know that has been a key concern for council leaders of all parties, not least because if they consent to a very substantial development that leads to very significant growth in their business rates income, that growth in income is intended to offset its negative consequences. For example, the development might generate additional traffic or lead to a lot more workers travelling to a particular area, requiring additional emergency facilities. The loss of that income through redistribution to other parts of the country, through a formula that we do not have in front of us, could have quite a significant negative consequence.

Over the years—it is no different with the current Government—central Government have been very keen to encourage local authorities to give consent to developments that create additional business that pays more business rates, creates jobs and all the rest of it. We know that is facing a significant challenge at the moment, and local authorities looking at this instrument can see that they will be losing out, having put the cost of consenting to a development on to local taxpayers, which will certainly discourage them from being so willing in future.

Can the Minister set out briefly for the Committee what she expects to be the consequent changes in funding levels? Clearly, those could be quite substantial, and this is a system of top-ups and tariffs, as we have had in place to a degree for a long time, so it would be helpful to understand whether there are any significant winners or losers as a consequence of the decision that people are being asked to make.

Secondly, when the Minister refers to a reset of the business rates mechanism, what does she expect it to reset to, so that those local authorities have a clear line of sight that says, “This will be the consequence for your business rates collection at a local level”?

Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the explanatory memorandum that she has kindly circulated. Paragraph 5.6 addresses the way in which the funding is to flow. She is making a change to shift it from the general fund—that is part of the annual budget-setting process of a local authority—into the collection fund, which is subject to a longer period of decision making. I can see why there might be some arguments for doing that. However, it would be helpful to understand what she expects the consequence to be, so that when our local authority colleagues set their budgets, they have a clear sense of what the consequence will be of shifting the flow of that money from an account covered by the general provision on fixing council tax, which has to be balanced in-year, to a collection fund, where more flexible rules apply.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.

[David Simmonds]

I apologise, but I meant paragraph 5.13, not paragraph 5.6, of the explanatory memorandum. I had turned over the page and misread my record.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point.

On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period. That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum.

In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system. As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my roles as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.

I congratulate to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing the debate. He, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set the tone of a debate that has engaged, with a high degree of seriousness, not only with the issues that stem from the specifics of what is happening in Surrey but with what they say about the wider local government reorganisation debate.

It was interesting as a parliamentarian to be present, a short time ago, at a Delegated Legislation Committee in which Committee members agreed the abolition of the historic county of Surrey and its replacement with two unitary authorities. That was the conclusion of a long period of debate in which, as the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, the leaders of county councils in particular argued strongly that local government reorganisation on the footprint of the existing county structure would be a way to save money. Many district councils argued strongly against that idea, and it was called into question by many experienced unitary leaders.

We all recognise that there is a need to look again at our local government settlement. This country is already very under-represented in democratic terms at the local level, with the fewest elected politicians per capita of any developed democracy. It is also intensely centralised by comparison with most other countries, with decisions that would as a matter of routine be local decisions in most other democracies taken by Parliament or central Government.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Minister, because while she is from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, council services touch on the work of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The observations that other Members have made about the impact of special educational needs and disabilities demonstrate that complexity, where an issue that sits outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is one of the single biggest factors in the viability of local authorities.

The last time we faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I asked the Minister, with particular respect to Surrey, whether there was an update on negotiations. Surrey had set out very clearly that its deficit on SEND spending sits at around £350 million, and the Government had been clear—in fairness, it was Department for Education Ministers—that they would pay off 90% of that deficit. The offer to Surrey was £100 million, which was significantly less than the 90% that we were promised at the Dispatch Box. This is not simply a matter of what happens in a single Government Ministry; it brings together services, activities and decisions across Government.

Reflecting on the long history of local government reorganisation, it probably predates the existence of our country as a unitary state. Certainly the role of some ancient Saxon kingdoms is quite akin to the behaviour of some local government leaders today. The particular challenges that come from the difficult relationship between central and local government are manifest here today.

With regard to recent developments, I spent 12 years in local government under the previous Labour Government and a further 12 years there under the Conservative Government who left office in 2024, and many of the decisions that were made then by central Government—statutory requirements placed on local authorities such as SEND arrangements, social care, the fair access criteria that were introduced, housing—were never fully funded. Since the early 2000s, there has been steady growth in the share of local government spending that is consumed by social care and housing. We have seen an erosion of the ability of our elected local leaders to deploy locally raised resources against local priorities, to the extent that social care now consumes around 70% to 80% of the budget of a typical social care authority. That is not sustainable.

Other Members have spoken passionately and with a degree of criticism about the impact that investment decisions at the council level have had. We all recognise that councils led by all of the parties represented here have made both good and bad decisions when it comes to investment, but we should be wary of criticising local leaders for having made decisions in good faith that did not end well. At a time when the public works loan board interest rate was 0.25%, the decision—even by a council—to take a loan and put it in the bank would have generated additional finance that could have supported local government services. Those decisions were not always innately wrong, but the impact of covid on local authorities’ investments in commercial property was absolutely devastating. Spelthorne, which has been mentioned today, is one example of that: what would have looked like an extremely sound commercial investment turned into a very bad one because of the impact of covid.

         We find ourselves today in a situation where Surrey is unusual. It is the only authority announced for the devolution priority programme that has got to the point of creating new successor unitary authorities. At the outset of this process, the Government were very clear that they were going to cancel the elections in all the devolution priority programme councils, which we voted against at the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered that matter. They did so on the basis that elections for the new unitaries and mayors would take place across the country. There were supposed to be elections this May for new mayors in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hampshire and many other places. Political parties and local leaders had been working on that basis, only to find after a 24-hour U-turn last December that the elections that were promised to go ahead were suddenly being cancelled.

All this delay and dithering is imposing costs. I met yesterday with a finance company that told me that the procurement of new finance systems across the local authority sector has simply ground to a halt in the absence of any clarity from Government about what is happening. The commissioning of new services in social care to address homelessness has collapsed, which I know concerns the Minister, as has the delivery of housing—both the pipeline of new applications and the completions of new properties. Two thirds of London boroughs report no new net additional homes. That is an absolute indictment of the state in which many of our councils find themselves because of the delay imposed by this process.

As the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, both the Government and the wider argument for this reorganisation rely on a now rather old report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers at the instigation of the County Councils Network to support the case for county-based reorganisation. It is clear from the evidence he presented that the hon. Member, who left us in no doubt about what he thinks of this process, knows of what he speaks. The start of the process was simple. Half a million people was the minimum footprint in order to secure savings. That was the level that the Treasury expected to see delivered. However, that is significantly larger than the existing footprint of most unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described, it risked losing the sense of place and identity. Ministers quite wisely backed off. They looked at the bids from the local authority areas that were instructed to submit them and settled on a smaller footprint.

That fundamentally undermines the case that this will result in significant revenue savings to the Government in the medium to long term, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Crawley. A concern that the Opposition have raised a number of times on the Floor of the House is that the Government have no independent modelling or independent financial analysis to back up their direction of travel on these reorganisation decisions.

As all Members who spoke passionately about their enthusiasm for getting local Government right recognised, when we compare ourselves, sometimes unfavourably, to other European countries and ask why they seem to be able to build railways and public transport infrastructure faster than the United Kingdom, the answer is largely that those decisions are made at local and regional level; they are not made by central Government. Delivery of rail networks or citywide transport, for example, which I know is of concern to a huge number of Members where lots of good projects are on the stocks, is much faster and cheaper in many other countries. We need to look at what we can learn from their experience.

We need to reflect on the role of the Treasury. I have heard former Chancellors say that when the demand for additional day-to-day spending becomes unbearable, the temptation is to simply slow down the exit of capital from the door on major projects. One of the benefits of localisation is that it removes that temptation from Chancellors and ensures that things that are committed to, become deliverable at a local level.

There are many urgent pressures. One of the key concerns I hear from councils all the time is that the Government do not have a huge amount of time to think, not just in the sense of the parliamentary timetable but when we look across our country. Unemployment has been relentlessly rising every single month since the Government took office, homelessness has surged up 27% in London alone since the Government took office, debt is rising rapidly, planning decisions are grinding to a halt and housing delivery is grinding to a halt. We need to give local communities hope that there is a prospect of solving some of those matters. I share a concern with the hon. Member for Crawley, which affects us very directly. The decisions that the Government have made in the Home Office, speeding up decision making on asylum seekers, pushing those people out the door and up the road to the town hall which then has responsibility for housing them, is putting acute pressure on my local authority, his local authority and many others across the country who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

It is very clear that a whole range of issues are brought to our attention by what is happening in Surrey. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have set out their particular concerns. I hope that, as a result of the observations made in the debate, we may see the Government come back with a revised set of policies that reflect a clear sense of place and the opportunity for all our constituents to know that they will have elected representatives who can make the decisions that they want to see made at a local level.

[Peter Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.

Community Cohesion

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison.

As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges.

It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate.

The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported.

As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country.

We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need.

We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society.

Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

On Sunday, I celebrated iftar at the local Epsom Islamic Centre. We enjoyed lots of wonderful food and a real community spirit. Unfortunately, last October the centre was the target of vandalism and abuse, which included words and devils spray-painted on the building. That hatred does not represent the majority of people in Epsom and Ewell, but we cannot ignore the fact that there are those in our country who seek to divide us. Does the hon. Member agree that we must support our communities in standing firm against hatred and violence in all its forms?

[David Simmonds]

I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture.

We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country.

All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse.

I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that.

Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does the hon. Member agree that we saw a hollowing-out of state institutions that really matter to our communities during the 14 years of Conservative Government between 2010 and 2024? I refer to the point I made in my speech: under the Conservative-led Staffordshire county council, we saw the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. In fact, I spent last Thursday afternoon talking about youth justice with young people in my constituency who told me that they had never seen things so bad. Although I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, would he accept that there is a heritage to where we are now and what this Government are dealing with?

[David Simmonds]

I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt.

It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance.

The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly.

The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.

Power to Cancel Local Elections

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, at a time when Parliament is very active in the world of local government, which shows how much it matters. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about his local government experience and the diversity of services that local authorities provide; over 800 different services are provided by each council on average. That reflects the level of interest that all Governments and parties have in ensuring that the organisation and structure are correct.

As the Opposition, we have approached the issue of local government reorganisation with the seriousness with which we treated the same issue when we were in government. Where we are this evening, in looking at this petition, and where we have been in recent weeks, is fairly and squarely a mess of this Government’s making.

We must reflect that, when in government, we undertook, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford described, a number of reorganisations of local authorities, in each case committing that elections would never be deferred for more than a 12-month period—and they never were. There are good grounds for saying to our constituents, “Why spend millions of taxpayers’ money electing councillors to an authority that is about to be abolished? Better instead to have elections for the successor authorities.”

At the outset of this process—the former Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), is well recorded in Hansard—there was a very clear devolution priority programme in which councils were told, “You are going to be abolished. The Government will bring forward that legislation. Elections will go ahead for new unitary authorities or new mayors in your local area, so democracy will not be denied. You are engaging with this process in good faith. The voters will have their say. But what we are not going to do is elect people to councils that are about to be abolished.”

We are in this position today because the Government have signally failed to deliver on their devolution priority programme. Just one of those local authority areas, Surrey, has achieved the status of getting its new unitary authorities approved by Parliament—18 months into a process that the Government have described as a flagship programme.

Let us reflect on the process that Parliament followed. At the outset, the former Minister brought proposals to a Delegated Legislation Committee in March 2025 to postpone the elections in all the devolution priority programme areas. Members of the Conservative party on that Committee voted against those proposals, because we were not convinced by what the Minister was setting out about the deliverability of the underlying devolution priority programme. We have been proved correct.

In a situation where the Government were clear that the authorities were going to be abolished but had yet to bring forward any clear programme for the creation of the new mayors, and had yet to pass the legislation in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that would set up the framework for that, we made the argument that cancelling elections was not a responsible thing to do. Nonetheless, the Government pressed ahead, despite those warnings from the Conservative Opposition. Following that, of course, there was a reshuffle in Government.

At this point, it will be of value to reflect on the Gould principles, which underlie decision-making and state that, when cancellations of this nature occur, a minimum of six months’ notice is normally provided. Clearly, putting elections off for 12 months in authorities that, at the end of that period, would simply be 12 months closer to abolition creates huge uncertainty for local voters.

When we look at the frequent urgent questions, the opportunities we have used in Hansard through departmental questions and Opposition day debates to raise this issue, it is clear that we have sought to hold the Government to account. I reflect, for example, that I was told in response to an urgent question in December that, to quote from Hansard,

“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]

The following day, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government told the House that those mayoral elections scheduled for this May in those devolution areas were being cancelled after all. It is abundantly clear that there has been chaos in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —a complete lack of direction—and it has left local government leaders across the country, who have been seeking to act in good faith and with an eye to the good use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining democracy in their areas, in an incredibly difficult position. The fact that we have seen Ministers, literally 24 hours later, reversing the position that they had been telling Parliament, has been characteristic of that entire process.

Let us reflect on the decisions that led to the most recent hokey cokey, the Government having made it clear that they were minded to press ahead with cancelling those elections. We know that the feedback from local government leaders around the country is that they were placed under enormous pressure by the Department and Ministers to say that they wanted the cancellation to go ahead, to the extent that drafts of letters were sent back to council leaders asking them to say in more clear and serious terms what the impact would be on devolution if the elections were to go ahead according to schedule; to their credit, many of those leaders and local authorities resisted the pressure that they were put under. But that resulted in the Secretary of State making the announcement that he would be bringing forward proposals to cancel elections in those 31 local authority areas, with Pendle being added 24 hours after the announcement was made—again, characteristic of the chaotic approach that the Government have adopted.

What is curious about the whole process—and this is the nub of the questions that I put to the Minister—is that although we have heard a lot from Reform Members about the judicial review, we need to be clear that Reform did not win a judicial review against the Government. The Government surrendered without a shot being fired; they essentially offered no defence. The Secretary of State, with the judicial review coming into view, decided to reverse his decision. Had he brought forward legislation to Parliament to cancel or postpone these elections, that would have been beyond the scope of a judicial review, as parliamentary proceedings are—as was the case when he dealt with exactly the same set of questions on the basis of legal advice that the Department had been provided with, roughly 12 months beforehand.

The key question is: what had changed? What was different that made something advised to be unambiguously lawful, dealt with through the delegated legislation process —with a clear robust defence from Ministers that it was the right thing to do and entirely in accordance with the measures in the Local Government Act 2000—become unlawful eight or nine months later? There is very little that legal advisers have brought to the Opposition’s attention that suggests that, had the Secretary of State pressed ahead with his decision, placed that decision before Parliament and had Parliament voted for the elections to be cancelled, that would be subject to challenge.

It is clear, however, that in defending a judicial review the Government would have had to set out the correspondence and discussions that they had with all the local authorities that they were putting under such acute pressure to seek the cancellation of the elections. The Opposition are going to be pushing hard to understand what it was that led the Secretary of State to delegate the decision to a different Minister, rather than make it himself as the legislation envisages, and to instead reverse at the last minute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford noted.

That decision was taken at huge cost and had a huge impact on local authorities, many of which, on the basis of the Government’s assurances, had released the polling stations, told schools that they would now be open on polling day, and had stood down the polling clerks and staff who were not going to be needed because the Government had cancelled the elections. Many had told the police that they could stand down their planned patrols ensuring that those elections could go ahead, because the Government were cancelling. The police now have to put that operation back together at incredibly short notice.

 I know that the Minister’s answer to the question of what changed is likely to be that the Government do not discuss the basis of their legal advice. That is a principle that Governments of all parties have stuck to for many years. However, the legal context of the decision made in March 2025—I remind the House that we, as an Opposition, voted against the decision—was that it was lawful and in accordance with custom and practice for the Government to postpone the local elections. What was different when the Secretary of State came to put this decision before Parliament nearly 12 months later? What had changed—other than the grave concern of many Labour council leaders that they were facing a drubbing at the polls—to lead the Secretary of State to decide not to press forward with asking Parliament to agree, through the legislative process, that election cancellation, as he had indicated, in his own judgment, that he would?

I finish with these points: in response to the understandable fury of many local leaders at the mess with which they had been left, the Secretary of State rather hastily announced £63 million of additional—as it was described—“capacity” grant. It would be helpful if the Minister set out, for the benefit of the House, what guidance has been given for the use of that capacity grant. It sounds rather like the amount that would be required to set the elections back up again at very short notice, expensive as that would be.

I reflect on the words of one of the Minister’s predecessors, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton. He spoke in Parliament in a debate on an urgent question. He described himself as “blunt” and said:

“Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith.”

I agree. He—a former Minister of this Government—said:

“They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent.”

He concluded, regarding this Government’s actions, that

“we need to be better than this.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1166-1167.]

Does this Minister agree?

Representation of the People Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.

Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.

Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.

The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.

A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.

Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.

We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.

On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.

Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.

[Kevin Bonavia]

Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]

[David Simmonds]

I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.

In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.