Tabled by
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to their 2022 response
to the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on
Local Government Ethical Standards, what plans they have to
address concerns about councillors having to publish their home
addresses.
(Con)
In the absence of my noble friend Lady Eaton and with her
permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name
on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, Local Government Minister MP wrote to all local
authorities last month to remind them that the Localism Act's
“sensitive interests” provision enables councillors to request
that their home addresses be withheld from publication and to
urge that such requests be accommodated. Primary legislation
would be needed to make provision that home addresses should not
be included in published copies of the register of interests, and
the Government will consider this if and when a legislative
opportunity occurs.
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Does she agree that those who
stand for elected office should be protected from those who wish
them or their families harm? That is why MPs and local
councillors can withhold their addresses from ballot papers.
However, councillors have no such right to withhold their
addresses from the register of interests, despite the Committee
on Standards in Public Life recommending that
“a councillor does not need to register their home address on an
authority's register”.
Councillors remain open to the discretion of the monitoring
officer. Should we not bring the law for the councillors'
register into line with that for the ballot paper and, indeed,
with that for Members of Parliament?
(Con)
My noble friend is right that the safety of our elective
representatives is essential to the security of this country.
Protecting our democratic values and our processes for democracy
is one of the most important duties that government has. Any
councillors with concerns about the publication of their home
addresses on published versions of the register of interests can
and should use the “sensitive interests” provision at Section 32
of the Localism Act 2011. Minister Hoare has recently reiterated
this to those responsible in local authorities in his recent
letter.
(LD)
My Lords, according to the Local Government Association's recent
survey, 70% of local councillors reported experiencing abuse or
intimidation. Aggressive behaviour which goes well beyond
courteous debate deters people from public service, weakens
democracy and is damaging to the families of those who seek to
serve others. Will the Minister write to all local authorities
urging them to take up the Local Government Association's Debate
Not Hate campaign? Will she seek to widen the scope of the
defending democracy programme run by the National Protective
Security Authority explicitly to include the safety, security and
well-being of locally elected politicians, rather than focusing
solely on national politicians and foreign interference?
(Con)
I will certainly take that back to the department. Anything more
that we can do to protect democracy, particularly in local
elections, we will do—I will make sure that I do that myself. On
28 February, the Prime Minister announced that he was putting an
additional £31 million over the next year into strengthening
security not just for MPs but for all locally elected
representatives. He has been working with the police on this
issue as well. It is important to know that we are doing
something to protect all our elected representatives, but we can
always do more.
(Lab)
My Lords, I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public
Life when the report on local government ethical standards was
published in January 2019. We took evidence from many councillors
of all parties about the intimidation they received, including at
home because their home addresses were in the public domain. They
felt particularly unsafe when online threats were being made. The
Government did not respond to the committee's recommendations
until 2022, when they agreed with the principle behind them and
the statutory amendments which the committee proposed. They said
that this was the right route to take and promised that they
would engage with interested parties on the best means of
ensuring that councillors and candidates were not required to
publish their addresses. It is a shame that it has taken so long.
Do the Government intend to publish their response?
(Con)
My Lords, we have already enacted one of the recommendations from
the Committee on Standards in Public Life, about candidates, but,
as I said before, the issue of local councillors is more
difficult, as we need primary legislation to change that. We are
keeping our eye on when we can do it.
(Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend referred to democracy
in general. Although we are here specifically discussing local
councillors, is it not worth bearing in mind that, for example,
Members of the House of Lords and other people in the public eye
have faced threats? When discussing this with other government
departments, we need to bear in mind the loneliness of families
who are living in identifiable locations—their home addresses and
the like—when their relatives or spouses are away in this or
other places.
(Con)
As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely
right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive
interests” provision and protected in the same way as
councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are
concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House
officials.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such
an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May
I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded
under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to
seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the
Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation
under statute that councillors' home addresses will not be
published unless they specifically request that this be done?
(Con)
This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to
do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is
better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot
remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It
is important to have this while we are waiting for that further
legislation.
(Con)
My Lords, if we go back to the 1960s, when I stood for election
in the London Borough of Islington and was the first ever
Conservative leader in that borough, there were—from memory—two
people standing as councillors on phantom home addresses. As far
as I am concerned, there must be some managed means of ensuring
that anybody standing for a local authority is actually living
within that local authority area.
(Con)
I do not think it is a requirement to live in that local
authority area necessarily, but it is important that anything on
the register is correct. Obviously, there are ways of looking
into that. The other interesting thing is that you can opt in or
opt out. Some people like to opt in—they really want their names
to be there—and therefore any legislation needs to give the
opportunity for councillors or any other elected members to do
that.
of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in recent months, many local and national politicians,
including me, have been subject to behaviour from a minority of
the public which goes beyond what is reasonable and acceptable,
including putting people's homes on social media, throwing
fireworks through letterboxes, and horrendous abuse being given
out on the doorstep. Keeping our politicians safe and feeling
safe is vital not only for its own purpose but to stop others
being put off from dedicating their lives to public service. What
broader steps are the Government taking to ensure that this
building pattern of intimidation is halted and reversed before it
becomes an accepted norm against councillors, MPs and Members of
this House?
(Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We cannot have intimidation
stopping people wanting to be elected to represent their
communities at whatever level—it is important even at parish
council level. What more can we do? We can look for legislative
time to change it, but, in the meantime, we are doing everything
we can. We have put in £31 million more this year to bolster
security for elected members and, as I say, if you are a local
councillor, there is always an opportunity to go to your
monitoring officer and ask for your home address to be taken off
if you are worried about it or worried about your family.
