UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Local Government

  • Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    Martin Wilby – 2023 Interview on the Norwich Western Link

    The interview with Martin Wilby published on 1 January 2023.

    ROUTE QUESTIONS

    (i) The county council undertook work on several routes early on during this process, coded Option A, Option B (East and West), Option C and Option D (East and East). The preferred route is Option C, but would it be too late in the process for the council to switch to, for example, Option A? Would it rather switch than lose the project entirely? Some campaigners have suggested that the improvement of existing roads would be possible, is that still an option?

    The proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was selected as the best overall solution for the road having considered a number of factors, such as transport benefits, environmental effects, value for money and impacts on local communities. 

    We wanted, and continue to want, to strike the right balance in providing infrastructure that provides great benefits to residents, businesses and visitors in Norfolk which effectively tackles the transport issues that exist to the west of Norwich but also limits impacts on the local area. 

    The process we need to follow for a major infrastructure project of this kind means there is still some way to go before we can be certain that the project will be delivered; reaching milestones such as receiving a funding commitment from central government and receiving planning approval will be crucial. We are focused on achieving these milestones and we have no plans to change the route. If that position were to change in the future, we would need to consider the reasons for that change in any decision-making on how to proceed.

    (ii) When the preparatory work was done by the council to choose a preferred route, there was preference given to Option C because of the limited presence of bats compared to other routes. It has transpired that there are bats on this route and amendments have been needed. Would this have impacted on the council’s decision earlier on if this information had been known? Is it normal for mistakes of this sort to be made on projects of this scale and funding?

    As referred to above, the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link was chosen based on a number of factors, which included information gathered about the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich. It is not therefore true to say that decision-making about the route selection was based, or would ever be based, on one element but rather by taking all the relevant elements into account.

    Before the decision on the preferred route was reached, a great deal of work had been carried out. Objectives for the project were established with input from local communities and a long list of options was developed. These were reduced to a shortlist of options based on how effective the options were at meeting the project objectives, and a public consultation on this shortlist was conducted as well as other assessment work including a range of surveys in the area. Bat surveys were among the surveys conducted before the preferred route was agreed.

    Surveys over a number of years had identified the presence of bats in the area to the west of Norwich, including around the proposed route for the Norwich Western Link, and mitigation measures including green bridges and planting were developed to take account of this. Our 2021 surveys identified a roost used by a maternity colony of barbastelle bats in an area of woodland close to part of the route. We therefore needed to develop our design to minimise our impact on these woodlands.

    It is entirely normal on an infrastructure project for further surveys to be carried out at the point at which a single, preferred route has been agreed and for the design of the route to be developed as further detail is known. And continuing to develop the design of the road and its associated measures in response to evidence until the planning application is submitted is a normal and expected part of the process. 

    (iii) The route has the support of most councils in the county, business groups and also the emergency services. Do you believe that some opponents of the new road have underestimated how much support the project has in many areas?

    There is strong support for the project, not least from those people who are living in communities to the west of Norwich which are badly affected by traffic congestion on unsuitable local roads and in residential areas. And with planned growth in and around Norwich, existing traffic congestion to the west of Norwich is expected to significantly worsen without the Norwich Western Link. I don’t know if anyone has underestimated the support that exists for the project, I can’t think of anything that would lead me to think that.

    ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

    (iv) Assuming that the council’s preferred route receives approval and funding, is it confident that it has done all that it can to minimise the negative environmental impact? Are there things that the council would like to do, but can’t justify the cost of doing?

    Cost and value for money are of course important considerations across all aspects of this project, as they should be when national and local public investment is involved. But there are also other important considerations and these include our environmental responsibilities on a project like this.

    We’re continuing to take an evidence-based approach to the project and to receive expert advice and follow relevant guidance. If we receive planning approval this means we would have satisfied the planning authority and environmental statutory bodies that our proposals are acceptable to them, which is of course a crucial aim.


    TRANSPORTATION QUESTIONS

    (v) The council has suggested that the road has significant public support. Is this a failure of the wider public transportation policy over recent decades, both within and without the control of Norfolk County Council? Is a new road primarily necessary as there are poor public transportation options, particularly when crossing Norfolk rather than on arterial routes?

    There are a number of reasons why people might support the creation of the Norwich Western Link: businesses may welcome more efficient journeys for the transportation of goods, enabling them to increase productivity and profitability; local residents may be looking forward to quieter, safer local roads and better air quality close to their homes; and emergency services and the people who rely on them are likely to be relieved that many journeys to the west of Norwich will be shortened, including for ambulances to and from the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

    It’s also important to remember that public transport requires good infrastructure just like any other mode of travel. Bus operators need to be able to run quick, reliable services to attract and retain passengers and make routes commercially viable, and getting stuck in queuing and slow moving traffic significantly hinders this.

    We want to support people to shift their journeys from using a car to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport where appropriate. This will generally be more achievable over relatively short distances and in and between larger centres of population, or where there is a concentration of public amenities or employment. 

    We have been investing in improvements to facilities for public transport users and walkers and cyclists for several years now, particularly in our towns and larger villages and in and around Norwich through our multi-million Transport for Norwich project (www.norfolk.gov.uk/tfn). We have, among other things, improved pedestrian and cycle access to railway stations in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, there have been upgrades to bus facilities in Norwich, Thetford, North Walsham and Cringleford, and we’ve created an off-road pedestrian and cycle path linking Norwich to the fast-growing populations in Hethersett and Wymondham, and extended our very popular Beryl bike/e-bike/e-scooter hire scheme from Norwich into those areas.

    So my view is that there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ approach to transport and we need to continue to invest in a wide range of transport infrastructure in Norfolk to support all kinds of journeys.

    (vi) The council has suggested that it is unlikely that there will be public transport provided along the route of the road itself. Does this further exclude those who can’t afford cars, don’t want cars or are trying to avoid acquiring a car? Does more road building make it harder to ever increase public transport usage?

    As stated above, reducing congestion on the existing road network as well as creating a more resilient road network that is able to cope with planned growth will bring benefits to all road users, including bus companies and passengers. So making sure we have good infrastructure is important to everyone who travels in Norfolk.

    I would also add that the possibility of a new bus service being established to connect communities to the west of Norwich directly to employment hubs and services, such as the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, once the Norwich Western Link is in place is being discussed with bus operators. By taking traffic off the existing road network, the Norwich Western Link would make such a service more viable. 

    We are also planning to support people to walk and cycle more by improving the Public Rights of Way network in the vicinity of the Norwich Western Link route as well as putting in measures to make walking and cycling more attractive across a wider area.

    (vii) Is the council comfortable with the level of money that has already gone into the project? What are the latest figures for the total cost of the project?

    The latest cost of the project is £251 million as set out in the July 2022 Cabinet report, of which we anticipate 85% would be funded by central government.

    Cost is of course an important factor when managing a project of this nature but so is value for money, and the Norwich Western Link is considered ‘high’ value for money according to Department for Transport criteria. Providing and improving infrastructure is an investment in the future of an area that will provide benefits for many years to come and enable it to grow successfully. So this is how I see the Norwich Western Link – an investment in Norfolk’s future.

    (viii) The council is relying on the support of national Government financing to fund the majority of the project. Is a problem the council faces that it is easier to get funding for road projects in Norfolk than perhaps subsidised bus routes or new light rail/rail routes?

    I wouldn’t say funding for road projects is easier but rather there are different processes, partners and mechanisms involved with the different types of projects and services you mention. 

    Infrastructure improvements to the council’s highway network – whether that’s projects aimed at supporting all road users or more specific interventions like creating bus lanes or cycle paths – are by and large funded by a one-off investment that we will deliver, and the infrastructure will then be added to the network for which we are responsible. Our £32 million Transforming Cities Fund project in Norwich is wholly funded by the Department for Transport and is currently delivering a range of improvements aimed at investing in clean and shared transport, creating a healthy environment, increasing social mobility and boosting productivity through enhanced access to employment and learning.

    Network Rail are responsible for the country’s rail network, so while we can make the case for investment, any new or improved rail infrastructure in Norfolk would generally be delivered and owned by them. That said, we are currently working to develop a proposal for a new rail station at Broadland Business Park to the east of Norwich, which would be on an existing rail line adjacent to the business park.

    Subsidised bus routes are a recurring rather than a one-off cost to a council, so this is funded by revenue rather than capital spending. We do subsidise some bus services in Norfolk and we’ve recently secured £50 million of funding – £31 million of capital funding and £19 million of revenue funding – from the Department for Transport for our Bus Service Improvement Plan, which will deliver measures to support and expand bus services across the county over the next three years.

    QUESTIONS ABOUT POLITICS AND BEING A COUNCILLOR

    (i) Projects such as road building are controversial because of the balance of ensuring the local economy thrives whilst limiting the damage to the environment. As a councillor and portfolio holder, have you found the debate on the road’s construction generally positive and engaged? Or can being a councillor sometimes feel a little thankless?

    The vast majority of the people I encounter in my role as a county councillor and cabinet member are very polite, friendly and respectful and I get a lot of satisfaction from holding a position which gives me the opportunity to help Norfolk and its residents. People will always have different views about how this should be achieved and of course it isn’t possible to please everyone, but I’ll just keep trying to do the best job I can.

    (ii) Would you like councils to have more power and influence over public transport to help deliver an integrated transport policy?

    The county council certainly supports the principle of devolving powers to local government so that local decision makers have more control over how money is spent in their area, as the recent County Deal announcement has demonstrated. I think we at the county council, the Department for Transport, public transport companies and other partners are all committed to making sure we have good public transport services that are viable options for many journeys people want and need to make.

    (iii) Is standing for election in local politics something that you would recommend those interested in the environment to get involved with?

    I think the most important quality in any elected representative is the desire to represent a community and an aptitude for public service. For me, it’s less about what I’m interested in and more about what the people I’m representing want and need. That’s obviously not always easy and, as I said above, it’s impossible to please everyone when people have different and sometimes competing priorities, and – being realistic – there’s a finite amount of time and money. But I’ll keep trying my best and that’s all I can do.

  • Rebecca Evans – 2022 Statement on the Welsh Consultation on a Fairer Council Tax

    Rebecca Evans – 2022 Statement on the Welsh Consultation on a Fairer Council Tax

    The statement made by Rebecca Evans, the Welsh Minister for Finance and Local Government, in the Welsh Parliament on 16 December 2022.

    I am pleased to publish today a summary of responses to the Welsh Government’s Phase 1 consultation on A Fairer Council Tax. The consultation outlined an ambitious programme of reforms as the starting point on our journey towards meeting the Programme for Government and Cooperation Agreement commitment to deliver a fairer and more progressive council tax for Wales.

    We know that council tax helps to fund essential public services, like schools and social care, from which we all receive huge benefits. Council tax is also a key policy lever for ensuring important financial contributions from households are fairly distributed. I am committed to reforming the system so that it reflects our current and future economic circumstances, funds services that benefit everyone, builds in regular updates to keep the tax fair in the future, and remains a local tax that connects people with communities.

    The consultation sought early views from individuals, organisations and key stakeholders on three broad areas of reform including: a proposed property revaluation and rebanding exercise with regular updates in the future; a review of council tax discounts, disregards, exemptions and premiums; and a review of our national Council Tax Reduction Scheme. The consultation was clear that reforms would not seek to increase the total amount of council tax raised overall from council taxpayers.

    The consultation ran from 12 July to 4 October 2022 and received over 1,000 responses, reflecting a wide spectrum of views and interests. I am grateful to everyone who participated.

    I have carefully considered the consultation responses and we will now reflect on the information provided in response to the consultation alongside detailed evidence about the operation of the council tax system and our ambitions for the reform of council tax.  These considerations will inform the next steps we take to make council tax fairer. Where we intend to make future changes, I am committed to outlining these in detail in a Phase 2 consultation later in 2023.

    The summary of consultation responses is available here.

    This important reform agenda is part of our Cooperation Agreement with Plaid Cymru. I will continue to work closely with the Designated Member, Cefin Campbell, as well as with key stakeholders including local government, property valuation and socioeconomic specialists, and a range of organisations that represent the people of Wales. I am also committed to continuing to engage with citizens about the purpose and delivery of a fairer system.

    It remains my ambition to achieve meaningful reform over the course of this Senedd term, as Wales continues to face unprecedented challenges and a cost-of-living crisis. The benefits of a more progressive system are well-documented and we must continue our work to reduce wealth inequalities and disparities across Wales.

    I will keep Members informed of developments as the work progresses.

  • Michael Gove – 2022 Statement on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2023-24

    Michael Gove – 2022 Statement on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2023-24

    The statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Introduction

    On 12 December, I published a policy statement outlining proposals for the 2023-24 local government finance settlement and details of funding in 2024-25. Today, I have set out the provisional local government finance settlement for 2023-24 and launched our formal consultation on the proposals. This settlement provides a 9% increase in national level core spending power, making available almost £5 billion in additional resources, demonstrating how Government stand behind councils up and down the country.

    Together, the policy statement published on 12 December, and this proposed settlement:

    Give multi-year certainty to local authorities, allowing them to plan ahead with more confidence over the rest of the spending review period.

    Ensure stability by introducing a one-off funding guarantee to ensure that every council sees at least a 3% increase in core spending power next year before any local decisions on council tax rates.

    Provide around £2 billion in additional grant for children’s and adult social care in 2023-24.

    Maintain a balance on council tax, protecting residents from excessive increases while allowing councils to generate income to deliver local services.

    Certainty

    Local government has long called for greater certainty on funding following repeated one-year settlements. In the policy statement published on 12 December, the Government have provided this certainty by setting out clearly our intentions and proposals for the 2024-25 settlement.

    Stability

    Government recognise that all local authorities are facing pressures. In this proposed settlement we are taking action to provide stability for all local authorities, across all tiers of local government, to support the vital work they undertake for communities across the country.

    We are introducing a new, one-off funding guarantee that ensures every local authority will see a minimum 3% increase in their core spending power, before taking any local decisions to increase council tax rates.

    Social Care

    Adult and children’s social care services provide crucial support to care users and young people in need, and this proposed settlement provides significant additional funding for this key area of concern. Government have listened, and we know that many local authorities are already facing difficult decisions brought on by inflationary and demand pressures. This is why we are providing around £2 billion in additional grant for social care, compared to 2022-23. Additionally, for social care authorities, we are consulting on a 2% precept for 2023-24. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level. When taking decisions on council tax levels, local authorities should recognise the pressures many households are facing.

    We have also listened to councils’ concerns about implementing adult social care charging reform in light of these pressures. That is why Government have made the difficult decision to delay these reforms, and to prioritise core pressures rather than risk destabilising the market. The funding intended for implementation will be retained in local authority budgets.

    Council Tax

    The Government’s manifesto commits to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases. This is an additional local democratic check and balance to avoid a repeat of what was seen under the last Labour Government when council tax more than doubled. The Government intend to proceed with a core referendum principle of 3% for 2023-24. Furthermore, we are proposing a bespoke council tax referendum principle of up to 3% or £5, whichever is higher, for shire districts. On top of this, we intend to proceed with a £5 referendum principle on band D bills for all fire and rescue authorities and a £15 referendum principle on band D bills for police and crime commissioners.

    This proposed package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level.

    The Mayor of London has requested flexibility to levy an additional £20 on band D bills to the Greater London Authority (GLA) precept to provide extra funding for Transport for London (TfL). The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the management of TfL by this Mayor, and it is disappointing that London taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the GLA’s poor governance and decision making. While the Government will not oppose this request, any decision to increase the precept is solely one for the Mayor, who should take into account the pressures that Londoners are currently facing on living costs and his decision to raise his share of council tax by 8.8% last year.

    We are also today announcing £100 million of additional funding for local authorities to support the most vulnerable households in England. This funding will allow councils to deliver additional support to the 3.8 million households already receiving council tax support, whilst also providing councils with the resources and flexibility to determine the local approaches to support other vulnerable households in their area.

    Conclusion

    These proposals will provide councils with the support they need. They give certainty, ensure stability, provide significant additional resources for social care, and maintain balance on council tax.

    I welcome representations from all interested parties on the consultation we have launched today. The consultation will run until 16 January. The Local Government Minister will also be holding engagement sessions for Members of Parliament in the week commencing 9 January 2023.

  • Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The whole debate around voter ID and the safety of our voting system is slightly Trumpian. This is exactly what happened in the US: the far right tried to claim the system is not safe and that people cannot trust it, and then, when a clearly democratic result came around that it did not like, the far right whipped up its henchmen by saying, “This was an unfair vote.” We know that that is not the case in Britain, and we know it has never been the case in Britain.

    The Conservative party and this Government talking down the safety of our electoral system is exactly what these voter ID regulations are about. It my view, it is extremely dangerous. I asked numerous times in Committee on the Elections Act 2022 for a public assessment of why certain forms of voter ID are acceptable and others are not. I was particularly concerned about why student cards and young people’s cards will not be accepted. Not once have the Government published their rubric of why certain ID cards will be accepted and others will not.

    It is interesting that, in applying for temporary or permanent voter ID, one piece of evidence that a local authority can accept is that the applicant is on the roll of a local educational institution, but a polling station will not accept the card from that educational institution. That barrier makes no sense. The Government cannot say, on the one hand, that evidence from the educational institution is not acceptable to vote but, on the other hand, that it is perfectly acceptable as the sole piece of evidence to get a voter ID card from a local authority—no further evidence is required—other than the barrier of having to apply days in advance.

    Under the regulations, however, a voter can apply for a temporary ID card up to the day before an election, if the electoral returning officer believes they would not have been able to apply in advance. Why on earth could they not apply for it at the polling station by showing another form of ID, by allowing the polling clerk to make a determination? Surely it is only because the Government want to make sure that people who would not have ID cannot vote.

    Government data shows that about a third of people have only one piece of ID. My mother has only a passport. She has an old-fashioned paper driving licence, and she does not have any other form of ID. What would she do if her passport needed to be renewed and an election were called? Given the mess in the Home Office, she might be waiting months, if not longer, to get her passport. It is the same with a driving licence. A person who moves house might wait months to get their new driving licence, but they have rightly chopped up their old licence and sent it back. They might then have no voter ID. Despite the Government saying that only a single-figure percentage of the population do not have ID, anyone renewing an equivalent ID might have no form of voter ID during the renewal period.

    According to the Government’s data, 6% of people say they will be less likely to vote. What is 6% in each constituency? It is about 3,000 voters on average. About 40 Conservative constituencies have a majority of less than 4,000. That is 40 Conservative constituencies that might hold on a bit longer, meaning the Conservatives claw on to power despite the popular will.

    Let us consider travelcards, for example. Even the Government’s own research shows that 4% of young and middle-aged people believe their travelcard can be used as voter ID. If they turned up to the polling station with that ID, every single one of them would be refused a vote—that is not to mention the embarrassment of being turned away—and many of them, about a third, would not bother to return. Those numbers would change about 15 results at an election. That might make a difference in a tight election.

    The Minister said the professional world has mixed views about the implementation of voter ID, which I am afraid is just not true. The Minister is either mistaken or something far worse, and I would not believe that of this very good Minister. The reality is that every single professional body—the Local Government Association, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators—says that the implementation of these regulations at this time is dangerous. They know it is dangerous because they have not been able to roll out even a card-based voter ID. It will be a piece of paper produced by the local authority. A piece of paper! Really? They will accept a piece of paper that an electoral services officer may have authorised, but they will not accept a travelcard that has to be applied for with a proper form of ID. It is ridiculous.

    The regulations will allow people in the community to attest that someone is who they say they are, but they will allow a person in the community to attest for only two people every election publication cycle. A doctor, a teacher or the one lawyer in a poor community might want to attest for many people, to say that they have known a person for a long time, but they will only be able to do so for two people. If those people cannot prove through other means who they are they are—there are other means, I grant that—they will not be able to go to their doctor, because the doctor will have used up their two for that year. Those are unnecessary burdens. We do not put that burden on applying for a passport or any other form of ID. Those arbitrary numbers are deliberately designed to attack the poorest who would not have access to others.

    The Government’s own data says that those who are trans or non-binary, who might be sick or have cancer, or who have experienced large amounts of weight loss and look significantly different, might face difficulties getting past the electoral services officer, but they have no plans to do anything about that apart from highlight to the polling stations that they should be cautious about that. How can they highlight to someone that they should be cautious that someone might not look like their ID, and at the same time say that they must refuse anyone who does not look like their ID? The Government’s own impact assessment does not make sense. The impact assessment on age says that they do not think that will be a significant difference, but the data itself says there will be a 4% to 6% drop in young people going to the polls. We know that those people are already less likely to vote.

    We can have an argument about whether we should have electoral ID or not. We can have an argument about whether it should be photo ID or the wider version. The Electoral Commission said that it preferred any form of ID, such as a credit card or other form of named evidence. We can have those arguments and we will continue to do so, but this instrument is being introduced with less than five months to go before nationwide polls, and no council administrator believes that they will be able to operate it safely. That is undermining our local councils. We know why the Government are trying to do that: they know that they will lose a load of their councils because people are fed up with the nasty Conservatives undermining their democracy and their councils. This should not pass.

  • Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The policy of requiring people to have ID to vote is simply a corruption of our democracy. It knowingly suppresses poorer communities, so the Tories can cling on to power during their economic disaster.

    We know that some 30% of people do not vote in general elections already; we know that, of the 243 million votes cast in the past 10 years, there are only a handful of examples of fraud; and we know that some 2% of the population do not have a driving licence, a passport or another form of ID, and that they will now be required to go and get that ID. Many of them will not get that ID and will therefore be automatically disenfranchised.

    We know that the poor will be disproportionately hit; we know the disabled will be hit; we know black and ethnic minorities will be hit; and we know the young will be hit. We also know these regulations allow older people, but not younger people, to use travel cards, such as Oyster cards, as voter ID. This policy is overtly discriminatory and is clearly designed to suppress votes and to load the dice at a future election.

    Aneurin Bevan, who famously started the health service, would be 125 years old if he were still alive today. In “In Place of Fear”, his political analysis was that British politics is a struggle between property and the interests of property, by which he meant the Conservatives, and poverty, by which he meant the mass of people represented by the Labour party. He took the view that, in difficult economic times, property would attack democracy itself.

    At a time when one in four people is now in food poverty, thanks to the incompetence and cynicism of the Conservative party, we have a situation in which the Conservatives are attacking democracy itself. They are attacking the right to peaceful protest, and they are now attacking the right to vote by requiring voter ID. This is a transparent attempt to corrupt democracy. It is totally wrong, and I hope a future Labour Government will repeal it immediately.

  • John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The debate so far has been superb and I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the expert way in which she completely took apart the Government’s arguments. I was 20 years in local government before I came here, and the last exercise in voter suppression was the poll tax. I was in local government at the time—I was chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, which represented both Conservative and Labour councils—and we explained to the then Government what the effect of introducing the poll tax legislation would be. It might well have been advertised as a fairer way of funding local government and collecting resources, but we argued that the Government needed to be careful because it could also possibly result in voter suppression. Naively, we did not think that that was an exercise being deliberately undertaken by the Government.

    Although the poll tax brought down Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister, it ensured that a Tory Government were elected in 1992 because of what happened in many constituencies. Take my own constituency as an example, where 5,000 mainly working-class people dropped off the register. As a result, there were four recounts and I lost by 54 votes. I know every one of them and I visit them every so often, but there we are. That was an exercise that was done for one reason but actually had a sub-reason, which was voter suppression, and unfortunately I think that is what is happening today.

    My second point is that, because of my local government background, I know that there is a long tradition that we listen to our electoral administrators. They are the one group of people in an authority whose professionalism we do not contest, because they serve all political parties, and they do so independently and to the best of their abilities. Most of them have limited staff and limited resources, and they are not particularly well paid either. Survey after survey shows the majority have no confidence that they can deliver this change in time for the local elections. First, they do not have the staff in place because of cutbacks. Secondly, they do not have time to have their computer systems properly tested and operating effectively. Thirdly, they do not have time to launch campaigns informing people of what they need to do to register. Even if they launch a campaign and it is sufficiently successful, the prediction is that anything up to 16% of the electorate might apply but there will not be the staff to administer it.

    We should listen to the constitution unit’s report: this is an accident waiting to happen. Just in administrative terms, whatever the political motivations, this policy is not supportable and is not needed, as has been demonstrated by speech after speech. Unfortunately, not only is it a policy that will ensure some people do not get the right to vote and will cause conflict and contests at individual polling stations, but it is a policy that people will come to regret. It smacks of the dangerous dogs legislation, on which we cannot find anyone who supported it or promoted it.

    My only reason for speaking in this debate, apart from my local government experience, is so that when people examine this legislation in six, 12 or 18 months’ time, or in the years ahead, I will be on the record as speaking out against it. I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.

  • Helen Morgan – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Helen Morgan – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    In mid-October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here and warned us that eye-wateringly difficult decisions would need to be made by the Government to stabilise public finances following the disastrous October mini-Budget, yet today we are being asked to pass regulations and put the final touches to a scheme that will cost £180 million over the next 10 years to solve the issue of just 33 allegations of voter fraud in 2019, with only one conviction and one caution. That might look like good value for money to the Conservatives, but the truth is that it is a staggering waste of money. In the midst of a cost of living crisis and a self-inflicted financial disaster, it beggars belief that this scheme is going ahead. Our councils are cutting critical services because of extreme financial pressure and we should not be burdening them with the additional cost of a scheme that is totally unnecessary. Whether it is for mirrors, privacy screens or ID cards, it is all a complete waste of their time.

    But is worse than that: not only is photo ID for voting not really needed, but the plan is not even expected to work particularly well. The chair of the Electoral Commission has told Ministers that the plans cannot be delivered in a way that is

    “fully secure, accessible, and workable”

    in time for next May’s local elections. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association is calling for the implementation of voter ID to be delayed because the LGA simply does not have time to get the plans in place for May without access to votes being put at risk.

    The most worrying element, as colleagues have pointed out, is that the likely effect of all this will be selective voter suppression. Research has shown that there might be around 3.5 million people without the right ID and that those people are more likely to be the most vulnerable in society, such as those with limiting disabilities, as well as younger voters, black and ethnic minorities and the least well off in society. The Cabinet Office has already admitted that around 42% of those without photo ID are estimated to be unlikely to apply for a voter ID card. The proposed acceptable forms of ID include a 60+ Oyster card or bus pass, but not the young person’s equivalent. This will disproportionately disadvantage students and young people. The Government have shown no concern at all about the possibility of postal voter fraud, which will not require any form of ID; I fear that is down to the fact that postal voters are most likely to be older and to vote Conservative, while the young and the other groups I have mentioned are more likely to support an Opposition party.

    There is no need to go into any further detail. In summary, I urge the House to consider the facts: we do not need photo ID, we cannot afford to implement the scheme and the proposals will simply lead to voter suppression. This Government should be trying to give the next generation a reason to vote for them, not to suppress their view because they have offered them nothing. Scrapping this legislation is not an eye-wateringly difficult decision. It would be a common-sense course of action. The Liberal Democrats are determined to end this legislation and I therefore urge all Members to vote against it today.

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The proposal will result in voter suppression, and I want to raise a number of concerns about its implementation, based on feedback from colleagues on Plymouth City Council, which represents one of the poorest communities in the country. Being in the south-west of England, surrounded by lovely beaches and gorgeous countryside, we are often not considered to be one of the poorest communities, but many of the problems experienced by some of the poorest communities in the north and the midlands are also present in the south-west.

    I greatly fear that this proposal will not increase turnout, and I think that any Government who seek to introduce electoral reforms with the objective of not increasing turnout should look again at why they are doing it. What is their motivation? The proposal will cut turnout; in certain target demographics, the Conservative party will have a partisan advantage over other parties, which should also make us look again at the reasons for the proposal.

    Many of the concerns were expressed during a group discussion between Councillor Tudor Evans, the leader of the Labour opposition on Plymouth City Council, and his councillors. I think they are genuinely meaningful, and I should be grateful if the Minister responded to them when he sums up the debate. One of them relates to the number of people who might be unable to obtain voter ID. On the basis of Government figures, the council estimates that about 4% of voters—8,000 people in Plymouth—will not have access to the photo ID that will be required for them to vote, which means that a great many people will not be able to cast their ballot without embarking on a bureaucratic process to secure it.

    The concern in this regard is that councils will not be able, in the time that is allowed, to process the necessary number of applications. Councils are not full of staff twiddling their thumbs and looking idle, but they do not have the capacity to enable electoral officers to work flat out to process these IDs. Even if it were possible for that to be done on time—which it is not—resources would be diverted from jobs on which councils should be focusing.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is right to say that this is about the disenfranchisement of, in particular, young people and black and ethnic minorities. As he also said, it is impractical too. The Local Government Association has talked of delaying the timetable beyond the local elections. I am fundamentally against the proposal and will vote accordingly, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that we need to look again at this unrealistic timetable.

    Luke Pollard

    I agree that the timetable is important. Regardless of party, we should all be seeking to make good legislation, with a good outcome. Rushed legislation will not lead to a good outcome, and I fear that rushed legislation is exactly what we have before us.

    One of the concerns that many councils have is that the software required for them to produce valid certificates enabling people to vote if they do not have what legislation defines as legitimate forms of photo ID will not arrive until the start of next year, and has not been tested and integrated into other local IT systems that councils possess. Even councils that want to process the IDs for as many people as possible cannot yet do so. Plymouth City Council estimates that it will take eight minutes to process a single piece of voter ID for someone who does not have one, and 8,000 people in Plymouth do not have one. That means an awful lot of work: someone will be working their socks off to be able to deliver it.

    This will also involve additional bureaucracy and cost. I asked a parliamentary question about the number of mirrors that would be required for the legislation to work, which produced some very puzzled faces. Why was I asking about mirrors? The answer is that the legislation will require 40,000 mirrors to be purchased by local councils to enable people in polling stations to readjust their masks or religious garments after taking them off to demonstrate that they are who they are, should they be asked to do so. It will also require the purchase of 40,000 privacy screens so that people can do that outside the public gaze, particularly for religious reasons.

    Furthermore, the legislation will require a woman to be present as one of the polling clerk staff throughout the day. I think we should be seeking more women to be polling clerks, but we know that many polling stations do not have female coverage across the entirety of the day. That would now be required, under these regulations, so we are asking councils that are deeply in debt and struggling to afford social care for some of our poorest people to go on to eBay and buy mirrors. We would need one mirror for every polling station and we would probably need some spares in case one got smashed along the way.

    It is a warped priority for councils to be buying mirrors, so can the Minister say whether the Government will be providing privacy screens and mirrors for every single polling station, or whether that cost will be put on to hard-pressed council taxpayers? I suspect that if the parties were in opposite positions and we were introducing this, Conservative Members would be saying, “Look at this Labour Government waste, buying mirrors and privacy screens.” Why is that not being said here? The £180 million cost is a significant amount of money that should be being spent on social care. The Tory-run Plymouth City Council is £37 million in deficit at the moment, and I want it to spend every single penny on essential public services, not on this type of bureaucracy.

    Another concern I would like the Minister to address is the safety of polling clerks at the polling stations. We have to assume that refusing people or asking them for ID will generate a certain level of friction among some of the people seeking to cast their vote. Plymouth has 105 polling stations and there is real concern about what advice has been and will be given to those polling clerks about what happens if that friction turns into violence. Will there be adequate policing resources available on polling day to ensure that those polling clerks are safe when they ask people for ID or when they have to refuse them? What about the people who do not return when they have been refused? Our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), estimated that this would involve nearly a third of the people. That is an enormous number of people who might be in possession of the correct form of identification but do not have it with them when they go to vote. That is an awful lot of people who simply will not return, and not just for that election, because it will damage their voting experience for the rest of their lives.

    I want to put on record a concern about the rural impact of the proposal. People who live in an urban area who are refused because they have left their ID at home might be able to walk back to their polling station easily, but those who live in a rural area and must travel large distances to get to their polling station are less likely to return. There is an urban-rural divide.

    How will the Minister judge the success or failure of this measure? We know that there has been only one conviction, so in the Minister’s eyes, how many people being refused their right to vote will class the proposal a success, and what is the level at which it tips over to be a failure? I think that a single person being denied the right to vote is a failure, but I understand that the Government have taken a different view, and I would like to understand how many people must be turned away for this not to be successful.

    This is not a piece of legislation of which the House can be proud. More importantly, it is not a piece of legislation of which the Minister should be proud. After this piece of voter suppression delivers partisan advantage in May and turns out to be a failure because people are refused their right to vote on a widespread basis—heaven help us if there is violence or if a poll clerk gets injured because of this—what do the Government think success looks like? Denying people their vote is never a success; it is always a failure, and I think that is what this piece of legislation will be.

  • Richard Burgon – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Richard Burgon – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    I have listened with great interest to the Minister’s assurances to the House and the country, but it will not surprise Conservative Members to learn that I am not assured, nor will my constituents be assured.

    Tony Benn talked of the importance of the vote. He talked very movingly of the way in which universal suffrage had helped to transfer power from the marketplace to the ballot box, giving our citizens the right to obtain through voting what they could not obtain through their wallets, whether it be free healthcare, free education, or a say in our country’s laws. That right is under threat from these regulations, which are littered with discriminatory inconsistencies. They are not, in fact, a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but, in my view, a deliberate voter suppression strategy—a strategy not to suppress just any voters, but to suppress certain groups of voters in particular.

    These regulations are straight out of the right-wing United States Republican playbook. Over there, they try to find ways of stopping people being able to vote. How else can we explain the way in which young people are discriminated against in the regulations? I believe they are a deliberate voter suppression strategy against working-class communities in particular, and, in particular, black and ethnic minority working-class communities and young working-class people, because the Conservatives have taken the view that those are the people who are less likely to vote for them.

    The regulations also have a broader context that should disturb all of us who are concerned about hard-won British democratic freedoms. In our society, there are three main ways for people to fight back against unpopular policies or express discontent with a Government they do not like, or an employer they do not like. There is the right to protest peacefully, the right to take industrial action and withdraw labour, and, of course, the right to vote. These regulations on voter ID need to be seen within the context of an authoritarian drift on the part of a Government who have in their sights the right to protest peacefully, the right to take strike action, and the right to vote with ease. That is profoundly disturbing. The Members on the other side of the debate are probably split between those who believe that this is necessary and desirable and those who do not really believe that it is necessary and desirable, but are going along with it because they are going along with that authoritarian drift.

    Even if we were to accept the introduction of voter ID, which I and others certainly do not, when we look at the inconsistencies in the regulations with regard to which voter ID is acceptable and which is not, we see that it is a real dog’s dinner—a real anti-democratic dog’s dinner. These regulations should send a shiver down the spines of all those who believe in civil and democratic liberties in our society. They should send a shiver down the spines of people, regardless of their political views, who believe that the right of every citizen to vote, the right of every worker to withdraw labour and the right of every citizen to engage in peaceful protest are rights that were hard won and should be cherished and defended. It is because we defend those hard-won civil liberties and principles that we oppose these regulations, and oppose this Government’s disgraceful authoritarian drift.

  • Ronnie Cowan – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    Ronnie Cowan – 2022 Speech on Voter ID at Elections

    The speech made by Ronnie Cowan, the SNP MP for Inverclyde, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    When we stand for election, every one of us appeals to the electorate to get out and vote. We impress on them how important it is that they use their democratic right to express their will through the ballot box. We want bigger turnouts and we seek more and better engagement, yet voter ID will have a detrimental effect on turnouts. We know that because we can measure it.

    The UK Government have tried on several occasions to justify voter identification cards by stating that they already exist within the UK: they are used in Northern Ireland. What they cannot say with any conviction is that they have been a success in Northern Ireland. In fact, the turnout in the first election in Northern Ireland after photographic ID was introduced was 2.3% down. If we extrapolate from the data to a UK general election, approximately 1.1 million people would not vote. That would not fall evenly across the population, so who is it that we are disenfranchising?

    Angela Kitching, head of external affairs at Age UK, points out that the Government’s own research has found that 6% of people over 70 would have problems with presenting the right kind of ID. It is reasonable to believe that that estimate is low, because the UK Government did not include the 500,000 people in care homes and sheltered accommodation in their research. It is no surprise that Angela Kitching has described the idea as being “for the fairies”.

    The Royal National Institute of Blind People says that

    “this will disproportionately disenfranchise blind and partially sighted people, particularly older blind and partially sighted people.”

    The Royal Mencap Society has raised concerns that

    “voter ID could simply result in yet another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections.”

    Sense, the national charity that supports people with complex disabilities, has also raised concerns, saying:

    “Given the barriers that already face disabled people while voting, Sense is concerned that this could make it harder for some disabled people to vote.”

    Concerns have been raised by groups representing LGBTQ+ communities, including the LGBT Foundation, Mermaids and Stonewall. The Runnymede Trust has raised concerns that introducing a voter ID requirement would add further barriers to voting for black and ethnic minority groups.

    Those groups should not be disadvantaged. Their votes and their views are not worth less. Pilots have shown that 30% of people who had their ballot paper refused for lack of ID did not return later with an ID to vote. Were all those people trying to impersonate someone? I do not think so.

    As has been mentioned, this measure will disproportionately impact younger voters. ID such as an Oyster 60+ card is valid, but an Oyster 18+ card is not. Despite the calls for railcards or student IDs to be accepted, the Government have refused.

    Of course, change attracts a financial cost. Disappointingly, the UK Government do not know how much this change will cost. Their assessment is £150 million, based on an assumed take-up of 2%, but a UK Government survey found that 31% of people said they would apply for a voter ID card. The impact assessment estimates that an additional £10.2 million should be added for each additional percentage point, which brings the cost of that 31% to £450 million.

    In truth, we do not know, because the people surveyed were not informed of the existing photographic ID that would be acceptable, nor were they informed that out-of-date photographic ID would be acceptable. There is more confusion on which we are supposed to legislate: we need a clearer explanation of how having a period of validity for a voter card could work if its expiry date was not a bar to using it for its sole purpose at a polling station.

    What is driving this change? Photographic voter ID is supposed to be required to address the issue of personation —occasions when somebody pretends to be another elector and votes on their behalf. We are asking people who work a very long day in polling places to verify visually that each voter looks like the photo ID that they present and, if they are not happy, to refuse that person the right to vote. That is a burden that will weigh heavily on many of those who, until now, have diligently staffed polling places.

    For us to go to such lengths as introducing photographic voter ID, placing such a burden on electoral staff and risking disenfranchising 1.1 million voters, personation would have to be a massive problem. Yet, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, with more than 58 million votes cast in elections in 2019, there were 33 counts of personation at a polling station. As we have heard, that comprises 0.000057%. When we consider the number of people cautioned for or convicted of personation, the proportion is reduced to 0.0000035% of votes cast. This is a sledgehammer looking for a nut to crack. It is a solution looking for a problem. The long and short of it is that this legislation has been pushed through with little substantial evidence of its value.

    For as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom and Westminster has the power to affect the voting franchise and the electoral process in Scotland—even if that involves elections to this place—we in the Scottish National party will hold Westminster to account, and will demand that any changes must be transparent, considered, constructive and inclusive. The motion does not satisfy those criteria.