Proportional Representation: House of Commons

Cat Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), to his new position, and wish the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) all the best on her maternity leave. I am sure that he will ably cover her post.

Before addressing proportional representation, I want to highlight the feeling, which has come up in the debate, that the current political system is in need of change. The Minister will be getting to grips with the brief, but he will be well aware that our electoral laws are out of date and need looking at as a matter of urgency. Millions of people are missing from the electoral roll, dark money is influencing politics and public trust is at an all-time low.

This debate is about proportional representation. It is important to acknowledge that, as with every electoral system, there are pros and cons to first past the post. Simplicity is the key benefit of first past the post, because it gives the electorate one vote for the candidate or party they support. The other great benefit is the constituency link. As Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, when I go out and speak to my constituents, as I did over Easter, many of them greet me by name—they know me. I do not think they have the same relationship with their MEPs, whom they probably could not name and would not recognise if they fell over them in the queue for the bus.

I have outlined the advantages, but there are cons to first past the post, which have been outlined by many speakers in this debate. The current voting system has been under growing scrutiny. A traditional argument in favour of first past the post was that it had a history of returning stable single-party Governments. That has been well and truly debunked since 2010. Analysis of the 2017 general election also demonstrates the limitations of our voting system. That election saw a rise in marginal seats: 11 seats were won by fewer than 100 votes. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that less than 0.0017% of voters choosing differently would have given the Conservative party a majority.

Moving on to proportional voting systems, proportional representation has a number of good arguments in its favour. It is right for Parliament to reflect the political will of the people—who would not argue that a country should have a Parliament that looks like the politics of its people. I do not think that anyone can disagree with that principle. A proportional voting system would give voters the opportunity to vote for people they believe in, rather than voting tactically to stop the party that they like least.

I am sure that every political party taking part in this debate has at some point or another said to a voter, “Please support me, because if you don’t support me the other guy will get in.” As well as smaller parties standing aside in some seats at the last general election, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that 6.5 million people voted tactically. As I said, they were voting for parties that were not necessarily their first choice in order to stop the party that they perceived to be more likely to win in their area.

PR is of course well established in the UK. There are forms of it in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in London, for the Assembly elections. They all use proportional systems, which means that most voters in this country at some point have used more than one electoral system. In Scotland, where STV is used in local government elections, voters have demonstrated that they are capable of using more than one system and more complex systems than first past the post. Finally, all the UK-based proportional systems—except for the closed lists used in European elections—have the strong constituency basis that is incredibly important for any voting system.

Personally, I am on the record supporting PR. However, a major constitutional change such as this must have the support of the public. For example, in the 2011 AV referendum, to which I am sure the Minister will refer in his speech, 32% of voters supported AV, but the vast majority rejected it. AV is not, however, a form of proportional representation, and public opinion may well have changed since then. What has not changed is that our democracy is still fundamentally broken. I do not believe that changing our voting system alone is some magic wand that will fix the problems or mend the disconnect felt by so many voters in this country.

Millions of people across the UK feel that politics does not work for them, and it is not hard to see why. Communities are often affected by decisions over which they have no say or, even when they think they have a say, a Government can come in to override it, as in Lancashire in the case of fracking. Many people feel that what goes on in Westminster is a world away from the reality of their lives. Research published by the Hansard Society found that the UK public are increasingly disenchanted with the system of governing.

To move on to Labour’s position, Labour is committed to root-and-branch transformation of the archaic political structures and cultures of this country which work for the few and not the many. At the last general election, our manifesto committed to establishing a constitutional convention to examine and advise on reforming the way in which Britain works at a fundamental level. We will consult on the convention’s forms and terms of reference, and invite recommendations on extending democracy. The convention will bring together individuals and organisations from across civil society, and will act as the driving force behind our democratic agenda.

As well as looking at different voting systems, the convention will look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, and will consider the option of a more federalised country. Of course, a constitutional convention could look at other issues to do with democratic accountability, including whether MPs who change parties and cross the Floor should face by-elections. This is about where power and sovereignty lie in politics, in the economy and in the justice system, as well as in our communities. The convention will build a popular mandate for the deep-seated political change that this country needs.

As I said, it is important that we look at different voting systems as part of a wider package of constitutional and electoral reforms, to address the growing democratic deficit across Britain. That is the change that we must see.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

In welcoming the Minister to his place, I ask him to leave at least one minute for the proposer, Angela Smith.

Voter ID Pilots

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government’s voter ID trials ahead of local government elections.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

I should say at the outset that I am afraid my voice might give out, but I hope that everybody will bear with me.

Electoral fraud is an unacceptable crime that strikes at a core principle of our democracy—that is, that everybody’s vote matters. There is undeniable potential for electoral fraud in our current system, and the perception of this undermines public confidence in our democracy. We need only to walk up to the polling station and say our name and address, which is an identity check from the 19th century, based on the assumption that everyone in the community knows each other and can dispute somebody’s identity. Dare I say it?—if we really wanted to go back to 19th-century politics, neither I nor the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) would even be in this House. The voter ID pilots, which are supported by the independent Electoral Commission, are a reasonable way to ensure that voter ID works for everybody ahead of a national roll-out.

Showing ID is something that people of all backgrounds already do every day—when we take out a library book, claim benefits or pick up a parcel from the post office. Proving who we are before we make a decision of huge importance at the ballot box should be no different. I can reassure the House that both last year’s pilots and the decades of experience in Northern Ireland show that voter ID does not have an adverse effect on election turnout or participation. Furthermore, the Government have consulted a range of civil society groups to ensure that voter ID will work for everybody. Crucially, local authorities will provide alternative methods of ID free of charge to electors who do not have a specified form of ID, ensuring that everybody who is registered has the opportunity to vote.

At next month’s local elections, voters in 10 diverse areas across the country will be asked to show ID before they place their vote. Let us remember that those votes will have a real effect on communities, so these elections are important. People should be confident in our democracy. If they are, they are more likely to participate in it. My message to the voters in the pilot areas is that these pilots are about protecting their vote. We want them to go out and use that vote, and to take part in these elections. I ask hon. Members here today to ask their constituents to do so. Voter ID is part of how this Government are strengthening the integrity of our electoral system to give the public confidence that our elections are secure and fit for the 21st century.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.

Next month, voters in 10 local authorities across England will be using the voter ID pilots in local elections. These schemes have been the focus of significant controversy. At last year’s local elections, where there were five pilot areas, the Minister appeared to celebrate the fact that at least 350 citizens were excluded from voting for not having valid ID. This included people who had voted legitimately for their entire lives.

The Government claim that voter ID is designed to tackle electoral fraud in polling stations. However, during an evidence session with the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, the Minister could not even say whether the pilots had had any impact on voter fraud. Given that the Minister was unable to draw any conclusions from the last set of pilots, what does she expect to gain and how will she measure success this year?

Civil society groups and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have warned that voter ID will have a disproportionate impact on voters from ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people and disabled people. Has the Minister failed to notice the Windrush scandal, which demonstrated that it can be more difficult for some communities to provide official documentation than for others? We all know that voter ID will have significant ramifications for our democracy, because 3.5 million citizens—7.5% of the electorate—do not have access to photo ID. If voter identification requirements are restricted to passports or driving licences, as they are in some areas, that number rises to 11 million people, which is 24% of the electorate.

Following last year’s pilots, it was revealed that rolling out voter ID nationwide would increase the cost of each general election by as much as £20 million. Is this an effective use of taxpayers’ money when local authorities are already on their knees? If the Minister thinks that these pilots schemes are value for money, why has she refused to tell the House how much they will cost?

Electoral fraud is a serious crime, which is why we would support any effective measures to combat it. However, this Government are not focusing on the real issues. There is no evidence of widespread voter personation in the UK. The latest figures by the Electoral Commission show that, of the 266 cases of electoral fraud investigated by police last year, 140 related to campaign offences and just eight related to personation fraud at the polling station, which is what the Minister claims this trial is designed to tackle. Does she think her Government have the right priorities when, despite most electoral offences being committed by political candidates, it is actually the innocent voters who are being excluded from our politics because of this ill-thought-out policy?

With local elections fast approaching and the Government planning a roll-out at the next general election, it is only right that Members of this House have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the Government’s plans. We are therefore requesting that the Government allow time for a parliamentary debate to discuss these pilot schemes ahead of local elections next month.

[Chloe Smith]

I am sorry to have to start in this tone, but almost everything the hon. Lady said has just been wrong. She suggested that we were unable to draw conclusions from last year’s pilots. That is simply not the case. Both the Cabinet Office’s evaluation and that of the independent Electoral Commission—which she may wish to dispute but it is, none the less, that of the independent Electoral Commission—concluded that the pilots did what they set out to do. The pilots were a success, in that the overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their vote with no impediment. What is more—here is the really important point—the evidence showed that no particular demographic group was affected by the requirement to bring ID.

[Cat Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but she knows that it is true. Perhaps this is part of the pattern we have seen from the Labour party of saying one thing and doing another. She still cannot explain why many constituency Labour parties require voter ID for their own selection meetings. She cannot explain why these were acceptable powers when they were passed by the last Labour Government; and she cannot explain why the last Labour Government did this in Northern Ireland, and why the Minister at that time said that this measure would

“tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters”—[Official Report, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 740.]

The Opposition cannot explain any of these things, and that is just not good enough.

Let me turn to the detail of what the hon. Lady has tried to put forward. Among her scaremongering and, frankly, conspiracy theorising, she made reference to the costs of these measures. I would like to make it clear to the House that, through correspondence with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have been clear about how those costs will be able to be accounted for. She asks whether we can allow time for a full debate on this in Parliament. I would beg advice from the Chair, perhaps, but I suggest that this is that debate. Moreover, the powers that the previous Labour Government put in place allow for this process to be done in this way, without any such debate, so if she has that problem, she ought to have taken it up with her colleagues of that time.

The hon. Lady asks what we are expecting to see this year. We are expecting to see that voters will be able to cast their ballots in a way that is protected. She does down voters by suggesting that this is in some way an attack on them and—I think this was her phrase—some kind of privileging of the political class. That is simply not the case. We are engaged in the breadth of the work that we need to do to keep our elections safe and secure and to update them for the 21st century. If she thinks that we should not be doing that, she is welcome to live back in the 19th century, but I do not think we should be doing so. We should be making sure that voters can cast their votes in a way that is protected and means that they can have confidence that they are not being usurped in their role.

The hon. Lady asks whether we should be focusing on crime that involves small numbers. Well, really—I ask her whether she would have said that decades ago about, for example, rape. Would she have said that about a crime that was under-reported? Would she have said that about a crime that involves small numbers simply for that reason? Of course she would not. Nobody would do so, because it would of course be disgraceful. It would be disgraceful to make that argument about small numbers, and that is the argument that Labour Members are making. Crimes with small numbers should not be ignored—people should none the less be protected against them, and that is what we are doing.

Votes at 16

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. We have heard a great many contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, and we have had quite a lot of consensus. It is notable that we have heard fantastic contributions from a number of Members from Scottish constituencies. There is a really strong argument that, where people have seen votes for 16 and 17-year-olds work successfully, they have warmed to it.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing today’s debate. He campaigns tirelessly on this issue and is a great advocate for young people in his constituency. They have asked him to raise this issue in Parliament, and he has done so diligently. I enjoyed his comments about his constituency’s connections to Peterloo and about the Oldham suffragette Annie Kenney, reminding us that this is about not just extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds but extending democracy and increasing participation.

I shared my hon. Friend’s frustration two weeks ago when this House did not have the opportunity to debate his amendment to the Overseas Electors Bill—an amendment that had gathered cross-party support and would have been a significant step towards securing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We can safely say that private Members’ Bills have not been an effective vehicle on this issue. I therefore welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Many arguments have been made about the age of maturity. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) argued strongly on that, and I disagreed with him on a number of issues. I enjoyed his comment that a 16 or 17-year-old is not eligible to serve on a jury. Of course, neither is anyone above the age of 75. Unless we are going to restrict the franchise at the upper end as well, his argument is somewhat inconsistent. Such arguments fail to capture the spirit of the debate. Above all, this debate is about strengthening our democracy, inclusion and how to involve all society in shaping a vision for our country. I believe our democracy would be made stronger by such an improvement to it.

A key reason why Labour is strongly in favour of votes at 16 is that it would help to increase voter turnout and develop lifelong voting habits. A recent study by Demos found that only 37% of young adults in the UK feel that British politics today reflects the issues that matter to them, which concerns me. No wonder we are seeing high levels of voter apathy and low turnout when voters are not directly engaged from a young age and feel unrepresented from their first point of contact with the political sphere.

[Alex Chalk]

If the hon. Lady thinks that young people have the right level of political maturity to vote at 16, does she think that they have the right level of maturity to buy fireworks? If she does, why did her party vote in favour of banning that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two different issues. One is about our rights as citizens; the other is much more about society, welfare and protection. Basically, there are some things that a person can do that will kill them; however, voting is not known to lead to death, at least not directly. When people make such arguments regarding the right to buy alcohol, cigarettes or fireworks, it confuses two different issues.

It is fair to say that we agree across the House that there is no magic age at which someone becomes an adult; it is a spectrum. The majority of people of a particular age might be of a certain maturity, but we all know fine well that an 18 or an 80-year-old might lack the maturity to do many of the things they are legally able to do.

[Mhairi Black]

In the hon. Lady’s experience, has she—as I have—met many 16-year-olds who have more life experience and understanding in their pinky than half of the people in this place?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Lady makes the point that life experience is different for everyone, and all of us come here with very different life experiences. Many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds have experienced far more in their lives than a 40, 50 or 60-year-old, and she is right to make that point.

I must make some progress, because I am aware that I need to leave time for the Minister’s response, which we are keen to hear. It is fair to say that there is no silver bullet for improving participation in politics. The way that people come into contact with politics in their formative years is a crucial part of it, but that is not the only thing that we should focus on. Evidence from the Scottish referendum and the 2017 Scottish council elections demonstrated that turnout rates among 16 and 17-year-olds were much higher than among 18 to 24-year-olds. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), who also highlighted that 16 and 17-year-olds were more likely use a broader range of sources to research how to use their vote, arguably using it in a much more mature way than older voters.

We know that an individual who has voted once is more likely to vote in future elections. The young people I mentioned were aided by the encouragement of their families and schools to become politically engaged, which should be a lesson for us throughout United Kingdom.

“Voting is a habit that is formed early, and we ought to treat it as such…It is important that we take…a progressive stance on these matters.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 527-532.]

I hope the Minister agrees with those words, not least because she said them in this House in 2015. For that reason, I am optimistic that we will find there is a great amount of consensus between the two Front Benches.

The recent school strikes that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted demonstrate that young people are aware of the world around them and are trying to take part in the democratic system, despite not having the right to vote. They have been inspired by a 16-year-old from Sweden, Greta Thunberg, who has risen to international fame for her work on the issue.

I believe that change is imminent. Across the United Kingdom, politicians have begun to recognise the changing tides. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned the situation in Scotland, which has left us in the bizarre position where 16-year-olds living there can vote in local elections but are denied the right to vote in a UK general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned the Welsh Labour Government, who are seeking to extend the franchise in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is now a fundamental inequality of rights in this country, because the right to vote has effectively become a postcode lottery—a situation that is morally and politically unsustainable for this Government. It is time that 16 and 17-year-olds had equal rights across our country for all elections.

A cross-party consensus has emerged. I acknowledge the great work of the all-party parliamentary group on votes at 16, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, which is about to publish a report highlighting the consensus across many of the political parties that have taken part in the debate. It is important for Conservative colleagues to realise that this idea is not a threat to their party. After the Scottish referendum, Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, described herself as

“a fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”,

having witnessed its positive impact. Since then, various Conservative politicians, including George Osborne, have claimed that there is widespread support for the policy among Conservative MPs and have called on the Government to lower the voting age to 16 or risk losing the support of younger generations.

It is our duty as politicians to catch up with the modern age. It was only in 1970 that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18, allowing teenagers to vote for the first time in the UK, and exactly the same arguments were prevalent then that are used today to prevent 16 and 17-year-olds from voting. The Government are quickly finding themselves on the wrong side of history. Our past is littered with bold actions, proud speeches and even lives lost to win and defend the right to vote. Given the Minister’s personal support for the issue, I hope she will have the courage and determination to convince the rest of her colleagues to do the right thing and give all young people the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I almost misheard the hon. Gentleman and thought that he said “45 years”, but he rightly notes that the recommendation was four to five years. No, I am not in a position to commit the Government to such a review today, because the Electoral Commission’s own review concluded that the age should not be changed and, as I shall set out, the evidence still says so.

In 2013, a YouGov poll of voters of all ages and political views found that they opposed changes to the voting age—even the majority of young people did not want 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote. More recently still, in April 2017, a very large poll of adults found that only 29% were in favour of lowering the age to 16, while 52% were against it.

The international state of play has been discussed, but I will not dwell on it because hon. Members’ examples were well given. The topic that I really want to address, and that the bulk of our debate has focused on, is the age of majority. We have to face up to the fact that 18 is widely recognised in this country as the age at which one becomes an adult. Rightly, we have a range of measures to protect young people below that age. It is a concept in our laws: there is a wide range of life decisions that entail taking on significant responsibility, for which this Parliament has judged that 18 is the right age.

Not only is the Government’s stance built on a bedrock of public opinion, from which we take our manifesto commitment, but there is a clear consistency to it. I do not think that the same can necessarily be said of all the arguments that have been made in this debate. Either someone is old enough or not—both cannot be true, so which is it?

Let me start with health. We generally seek to protect children and young people, who can be some of the most vulnerable members of our society, from actions—either by themselves or by others—that could be detrimental to their health. For example, Parliament has raised the age at which a young person can buy cigarettes; private vehicles carrying someone under 18 must now be smoke free; and we have introduced legislation to ban under-18s from buying e-cigarettes. As I suspect hon. Members know, the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health recommended only last month that the age at which someone can buy cigarettes ought to be raised from 18 to 21.

The arguments are fundamentally about health and damage; I wonder whether there are hon. Members present who voted against such measures, because they have an argument to answer about consistency. We as a society determine that young people need that additional support and protection. If we consider them to be minors in that area, why do we not in another area?

A further health example is sunbeds, which have been mentioned. Another, which draws on the point about how we differ in parts of our country, is that the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 raised the minimum age for getting tongue and intimate piercings in Wales to 18. That is a recent way in which the age has gone upwards. A non-health example is that of buying fireworks, which has also been mentioned.

There is a serious consistency point. Someone is either old enough or they are not, and that is not only an idea that is based on health examples—there are plenty of other areas where Parliament has made the same judgment. It includes the right to take out credit, to be able to gamble, to sit on a jury, to own land or property and to legally sign a contract. We could also look at the way the criminal justice system works, where young people are treated differently, with different types of courts and institutions.

Let us move on to the two areas that require parental consent: marriage, other than in Scotland, and joining the armed forces. Those concepts have been discussed in today’s debate. We have to be able to return to the central point of understanding whether someone is or is not old enough, and we should be honest on that point.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I have to continue as I must allow time for the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton to wrap up the debate.

The field of education and work is also relevant. At the age we are talking about, young people can choose to participate through full-time education, a job or volunteering combined with part-time study, or by undertaking further training—many young people choose to do so because it gives them good prospects. I think we would all argue that having people in education post 16 helps the economy and society more generally. If we determine that it is good for individuals and for young people collectively, we have to address that question to ourselves when we talk about their voting choices.

That leads to the question of when people work and pay tax. Some people—I think the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned it first in the debate—make the “no taxation without representation” argument. A minority of young people work—a small number—but not very many of them pay tax, in part at least because of the raising of the personal allowance. Those who earn least in our society, including our young people, will not be required to pay tax until they earn more.

I understand the argument that one could work and therefore one could pay tax and therefore one has an interest. It does not follow that the tax should be linked to the right to vote, especially if we turn the argument around. If we turn if from “no taxation without representation” to “no representation without taxation”, we would essentially be saying that those who are unable to work or the lowest earners in our society should not get the vote. That is the corollary of the argument, and it needs to be drawn out. If we want to make a link between tax and voting, we have to look at the opposite case as well. It is right that we should do so.

Parliament has determined time after time that we have such a thing as an age of majority, and we seek to protect people who are younger than that age. We have to confront that in today’s discussion.

I move on to what else we should, must and do do to improve citizenship education and expand the range of ways that young people can participate in our democracy. The Government absolutely recognise that point and have a record of action to prove it. We work in partnership with a range of civil society organisations, including the British Youth Council, to help young people be involved. The Government facilitate the UK Youth Parliament, and last year we saw the success of National Democracy Week. Of course, the national curriculum now rightly includes citizenship education.

I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton reminded us of Annie Kenney, because that allows us to look at what the Cabinet Office did for the suffrage centenary last year. It delivered a range of things to help young people get involved in our democracy. I urge hon. Members to look at the toolkit, the democracy ambassadors scheme and the school resources, which are there for us all to use in our constituencies. Those resources help us to do the practical work in a way that makes a difference, and help young people to be in their rightful place in our democracy, as part of what we should all be doing to promote and improve the way that we do politics. We do that by including young people, but also by being respectful of the arguments that go with that: what public opinion really says; what minority and majority really mean; what commitments such as those in manifestos actually mean to people; and how we can consider all of those things together in a way that means that everyone is welcome in our democracy, at the right age. That is as it should be, and it is a good thing.

Points of Order

Cat Smith Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has registered his consternation, and possibly that of others, at the conduct he has described, but I have no responsibility for what is said in the other place. In so far as he is inquiring about redress or recourse, the hon. Gentleman, who is a parliamentarian now of noted adroitness and dexterity, has found his own salvation by expressing himself with his customary force today.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during Cabinet Office questions, I asked about a phone conference that had taken place between the Cabinet Office and regional returning officers at which the preparations for the European Parliament elections had been discussed. The Minister without Portfolio responded, saying it was “simply not true”. In today’s Guardian, however, the Electoral Commission is reported as saying that discussions have been taking place and that this call did happen. I am seeking your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how the right hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to correct the record, should he have inadvertently misled the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and her characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intention to raise it. The right hon. Gentleman is in his place and approached me to acknowledge the likelihood of this matter being raised and to indicate a readiness to respond. Let us hear from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We will be looking carefully at the evaluations from the 2018 pilots and—when they come forward in a few months—the 2019 pilots to help inform our next steps and to shape how the final policy will look when introduced. We can benefit from close collaboration with local authorities, and we would welcome the involvement of Crawley as we progress.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

There have been reports that the Conservative party is preparing to take part in the upcoming European elections. The Opposition have heard that on Monday, there was a telephone conference between the Cabinet Office and regional returning officers, who would run such an election, during which preparations for European elections were discussed. Are the Government saying one thing in public and another in private?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said to the hon. Lady’s colleague earlier, she should not believe every rumour she reads in a newspaper or on Twitter. It is simply not true.

Draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019 Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019 Draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I am sure the Committee welcomes the fact that the last general election returned the most diverse House of Commons ever, with more women MPs, more ethnic minority MPs and more MPs who are LGBT. The Minister is right to point out, however, that we still have a long way to go to achieve parity in the number of disabled candidates standing for election and being elected to this place and to councils up and down the country.

The Opposition welcome the instruments before us. We recognise that disabled candidates incur costs because of their disability and that they should not be penalised at election time. The Minister and I have spoken about addresses on ballot papers many times, so that is also a positive change. We recognise that it could help more women and candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds to come forward, because there is a climate of intimidation and threat in our politics.

The Opposition therefore welcome these instruments. I want to speak briefly about both sets of instruments, because it is important that we acknowledge that intimidation, including death threats, criminal damage, sexism, racism, homophobia and antisemitism, has no place in our democracy. I think we are all too aware that candidates are often targeted because of their gender, sexuality or ethnicity. That represents a wider context of discrimination that targets individuals on the basis of their different identities. We should be particularly concerned about the scale of abuse experienced by women MPs, the resurgence of far-right and racist parties across Europe, as well as the worrying emergence of an organised far-right presence on the streets of British cities and towns.

The current legislative requirement for local candidates to disclose their home address on ballot papers has made local candidates and their families vulnerable to abusive activity and in some cases has deterred talented individuals from standing for elected office. The proposed changes should help to reduce that risk and bring the rules for local elections in England in line with those already in place for UK parliamentary elections, as the Minister mentioned. I and the Labour party have called for that on many occasions, so we very much welcome the statutory instruments before us today.

In addition to these measures, we also believe that there should be greater flexibility for electoral agents, to ensure that they do not have to disclose their home address either. The law currently requires election agents to have an office that appears on election imprints. That is often a local political party office or an office set up specifically for an election. However, agents who do not have such facilities are often forced to disclose their home address. It would therefore be welcome if the Minister outlined any steps that she or the Department are taking with regard to electoral agents.

With regard to the access to elected office fund, there are huge financial barriers in place that penalise disabled candidates, which we should acknowledge. The Government’s decision to close the fund will be a lasting stain on their legacy, because their own evaluation, published last year, highlighted the fund’s positive impact on disabled candidates, enabling them to stand for election. That evaluation noted that, in February 2015, the Geneva-based Zero Project, initiated by the Essl Foundation, selected the access to elected office fund as one of the top global innovative policies to support and encourage political participation by people with a disability. Over the past three years, the Government have rightly been under continued pressure to reintroduce that fund.

In September 2015, in a submission to an inquiry by the UN special rapporteur on disabilities, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said:

“The UK Government should reopen the Access to Elected Office Fund in England, and work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to explore options for making the scheme, or similar funds, available across Great Britain.”

Civil society groups, such as Disability Rights UK and More United, have also played a vital role by campaigning on this issue. I therefore ask the Minister again: will she restore the access to elected office fund as a matter of urgency?

The exclusion created by the order before us will capture disability-related expenses funded from grants provided by the EnAble fund for electoral office for disabled candidates. This interim fund of £250,000 will provide grants to support disabled candidates and will primarily cover English local government elections in May. Although we welcome the additional funds, the Minister would probably agree that the EnAble fund is not in itself a long-term solution to the substantial under-representation of disabled people in public life. The EnAble fund for elected office runs until May 2020 and is primarily intended to support disabled people seeking election in the May 2019 local elections and the May 2020 police and crime commissioner elections. Therefore, it is not intended to cover those seeking to stand for parliamentary elections. However, paragraph 4.2 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The territorial application of this instrument is UK-wide. The instrument will apply to candidates standing for Parliamentary elections across the UK”.

Some might argue that there is an increased likelihood of an election before the one scheduled in 2022, so will the Minister provide clarification on those issues?

Concerns have also been raised with me regarding the administration of the EnAble fund and the timing of these draft instruments. The Electoral Commission itself recommends that any changes to election rules should be clear six months before anyone is required to deliver or comply with those rules, so that those in question can be informed and respond accordingly. In these cases, that would have been the September just gone, so will the Minister explain why it has taken so long for these draft instruments to be prepared?

Government delay meant that the fund was launched on 3 December, just five months ahead of the local elections this May. I hope that I will be proved wrong, but my fear is that the current timeframe is too short to support disabled candidates who are not already elected and looking to stand again. We know from the experience in Scotland that the longer the lead-in time, the more successful the scheme will be. The Scottish Government spent a year on promotion and a broader access to politics scheme ahead of the 2017 Scottish local government elections. What steps are the Government taking to promote the new fund and to ensure that aspiring candidates are aware of their rights?

The Local Government Association issued a seriously flawed bidding document that included a requirement that any contractor must support the Government’s vision of shifting the prime responsibility for supporting disabled candidates to political parties. I have been told that that attracted zero bids, which forced the LGA to rewrite the document and start again, deleting that particular requirement. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case? The revised contract has now been awarded to Disability Rights UK, and the EnAble fund is open for applications. We welcome the fact that the fund is now managed by a deaf and disabled people’s organisation that has an understanding of the barriers that disabled people face.

However, the issue of responsibility is extremely important. Political parties should play a role in supporting disabled candidates. Not only do they have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments for disabled members and candidates under the Equality Act 2010, it is also, frankly, the right thing to do. That is why the Labour party established a bursary scheme to support disabled members standing for Parliament following the Government’s decision to freeze the access to elected office fund.

Opposition Front-Bench Members are extremely concerned by the Minister’s shifting the prime responsibility for supporting disabled candidates from central Government to political parties. While all political parties can do more to reduce barriers faced by disabled candidates, the extra campaign costs that disabled candidates incur because of their disability should be met by the Government. The Government’s own evaluation of the access to elected office fund stated that there was a potential risk

“that the parties may do less regarding ‘reasonable adjustments’…with reduced Government funding actually leading to fewer disabled candidates being adopted”.

That will particularly be the case for smaller parties, which will have less money to spend on election expenses, and the same can be said for independent candidates, who will not have access to political party bursary schemes.

It is clear that the draft instruments are needed to make our democracy more representative and to tackle rising security concerns. The Opposition welcome the additional funds that the Minister’s Department is providing through the EnAble fund, but we disagree with the political direction that the Government are taking. I urge the Minister to restore the access to elected office fund immediately, in order to find a long-term solution to this incredibly important issue.

[Chloe Smith]

I will try my best briefly to answer the questions that have been put to me. I welcome the Opposition’s support for the draft statutory instruments. I did not clearly hear the hon. Lady’s third question, and I wonder if she might repeat it for me, so that I can be sure to answer all her questions. I think I got the other six.

[Cat Smith]

Which one was the third?

[Chloe Smith]

Perhaps if I answer the first and second questions, the hon. Lady will be able to think of the third. I shall return to the others.

The hon. Lady asked how we might protect the home addresses of agents as well as candidates. I have considered that, but I should make the Committee aware that doing so would require primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, because of where in law agents are legislated for. I assure the Committee that that is being considered, although it is not possible to do inside tonight’s SI.

I will move on to the questions on the draft expenses exclusion order. Secondly, the hon. Lady believes that the predecessor fund—the access to elected office fund—should be reinstated. The Government are committed to the relevant issues, and they are using the interim EnAble fund for elected office to enable them to look at long-term solutions, as it is right to do. I refer to the fund as an interim fund because we want to use it to help people in the 2019 elections, while also allowing for a programme of work with disability organisations, to help political parties to work on improving their ability to support disabled candidates. From that we hope to have political parties offering and advertising support, as well as solutions to help independent candidates. I think that the last of the hon. Lady’s questions was about independent candidates.

The hon. Lady argued that supporting disabled candidates should not be a matter for parties, and that it was for the Government to do the job instead. I suggest that as a point of principle we expect employers and service providers to make reasonable adjustments—a phrase that she rightly used in her question. Given that we expect such action of employers in all other walks of life, I think it is reasonable that we expect political parties to step up and take it for candidates. I stand on a point of principle there, rather than accepting that there is a deficiency in the statutory instrument.

[Cat Smith]

Just to clarify, political parties absolutely have a role to play, and they should step up, where they are able to. My concern was primarily about smaller political parties, whose election funds are obviously much more constrained than those of the large parties that the Minister and I represent, which have more resources available.

As to the question that was not very clear, it was about the EnAble fund for elected office running until May 2020. Paragraph 4.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that the order is meant to be a UK-wide instrument applying to candidates for parliamentary elections; however, a parliamentary election is not scheduled until after May 2020. I was seeking clarification as to whether the Minister expected the fund to be used at the next general election. Perhaps it was a slightly cheeky question.

[Chloe Smith]

Forgive me, Mr Bailey. I was concentrating so diligently on the hon. Lady’s previous question that I did not catch the detail she was asking for. I think perhaps it is simplest if I write to her on that point, to make sure that the Committee receives a reasonable answer. It comes back to the answer I just gave, which is that we are trying, through the EnAble fund, to create an interim way to support disabled candidates while putting long-term solutions in place. I think that is the right way to go about it.

I hope that what I have told the Committee will provide reassurance about our desire for action to happen during a range of elections. I hope that that will mean we have a good testing ground, so that we can look at solutions across different types of elections. Finally, although it has been noted that the arrangement is to run until 2020, actually it is to run until 2020 or until its total of £250,000 is exhausted. That may assist the Committee’s consideration.

The hon. Lady raised the question of a Local Government Association document, on which I am afraid I cannot give the Committee an answer tonight. I am not aware of it, but I will ask my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to answer questions on the fund more broadly. The fund itself is not my responsibility, although the election expenses order is, so the hon. Lady may want to direct her question to ministerial colleagues in that Department.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked whether the order had been introduced on the right timeframe, ahead of the May 2019 elections. Although it is always desirable to have matters in hand six months before elections—that is certainly the aspiration that I work to and that the Electoral Commission has highlighted—I think that the order is in place in sufficient time. I hope that the answers I have given to the Committee about how we are using the fund and the order to encourage the development of longer-term solutions give confidence that we are looking at how to promote the fund, advertise the fund and ensure people are aware of how to use the fund. Ultimately, I think that the measures are in place at the right time for the elections, and I hope that the measures will be successful. I commend all three statutory instruments to the Committee, and I hope that what I have said has been helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019.

Draft combined authorities (Mayoral elections) (Amendment) Order 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019.—(Chloe Smith.)

draft local authorities (mayoral elections) (england and wales) (amendment) (england) regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019.—(Chloe Smith.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it comes down to what the people of Peterborough need: a hard-working and present local MP. Of course we have passed legislation in this place to enable recall. I suspect that may be used in this case, but I hope it will happen promptly, for the sake of the people of Peterborough.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Let us consider these figures: 25,342 and 21,900. Those were the number of voters who cast their votes for me and for the Minister to serve as elected parliamentarians, yet just 100-odd votes secured a win in the most recent hereditary peer by-election in the other place. The winner was eligible to stand because his great-grandad’s cousin’s dad’s fourth cousin’s dad’s cousin’s great-great-great grandad was made a Lord by Charles I in 1628. What progress is the Minister making on reform of the other place?

[Chloe Smith]

May I first welcome the hon. Lady back to the Dispatch Box? It is a pleasure to see her here again. Two points need to be made: first, the legislation she cites was that of her own party; and. secondly, reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for this Government. We have been clear on that matter and I can be so again today.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Cat Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Harper]

It is indeed, but it is also the case that the spending of money is a financial prerogative of the Crown. It is for the Crown to propose spending money and for Parliament to assent to it, as was made very clear by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in his excellent speech on Monday, with which I concur.

The hon. Gentleman’s Bill involves significant expenditure. It is not just about having another boundary review process; it is also about increasing the number of Members of Parliament by 50, which means quite considerable expenditure. It is for the Government to make decisions about expenditure. His argument would have more force if the Minister had said that the Government were not going to bring forward a money resolution at any point during this Session. That is not what the Government have said; they have said that the boundary commissions should be allowed to report and that the Government will then reflect on the House’s decision making on the boundary commissions’ reports. It is entirely possible that decisions may be taken at a later stage that will enable us to make progress in Committee. The Government are not being disingenuous.

It is also not the case that the Government invariably bring forward money resolutions. I remember an interesting case in the 2010-2015 Parliament, when I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) had a private Member’s Bill on a European Union referendum, which, as we know, commanded majority support in the country, albeit a small majority. The then Prime Minister wanted to bring forward a money resolution, but the Government were unable to do so, for all sorts of complicated, coalition-related reasons that I will not trouble the Committee with. There have been other examples that the Leader of the House set out. It is not an invariable rule; it is a convention.

The Minister has made it very clear that this matter remains under review and that the Government have not ruled out bringing forward a money resolution at some point in future. I do not think that the motives that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has ascribed to the Government are reasonable. That is all I wanted to say in response, recognising that the motion under consideration this morning is a fairly narrow one, as I thought his points needed to be dealt with.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her kind words and for wishing me well, as I am expecting my first child increasingly soon. It has been a pleasure to shadow her over the past couple of months—there have certainly been some mix-ups with our names. It is certainly one of the more interesting shadow relationships, as our names are so similar.

As this is the last Committee sitting I shall be attending, I want to put on the record some of my thoughts about the Bill. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton intends to keep coming back to the Committee to pursue the Bill, I expect to be substituted in future sittings. The Government’s efforts to sabotage the Bill by refusing to grant a money resolution defy the will of the House. That sends a clear message to Members of the House and to our constituents that the Tories care more about their own political advantage than about doing what is in the best interests of the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Standing Order No. 24 debate on Monday, and on persevering in holding the Government to account. I share his concerns that the Government are trampling over parliamentary procedure and making a mockery of the private Member’s Bill process. During that debate we witnessed a Government who were unable to put forward a single convincing argument to justify their undemocratic actions. The Leader of the House claimed time and again that

“it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 595.]

That simply is not true. It is an established parliamentary convention that the Government bring forward money resolutions for private Members’ Bills that have received a Second Reading, as this Bill has.

Until recently, the Government largely followed that convention. In 2013 the former Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley, told the Procedure Committee in evidence:

“To my knowledge, Government has provided the money resolutions...whenever we have been asked to do so.”

The Procedure Committee’s 2013 report therefore concluded:

“Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading.”

The Speaker also made his position extremely clear by saying that the Government should bring forward a money resolution and impose some “logic and reasonableness” on the process.

[Mr Harper]

Mr Speaker can obviously speak for himself, but I listened carefully to his response to that point of order. He was clear that he was not expressing the view that the Government should bring forward a money resolution—indeed, he made it clear that that was entirely a matter for the Government. He said that he felt it would be helpful if the decision-making processes about whether they brought forward money resolutions had an element of “logic and reasonableness” to them, but he did not express an opinion himself.

[Cat Smith]

I will leave it to hon. Members to listen to what Mr Speaker said and make their own interpretation, as there are clearly multiple interpretations in the Committee. What is clear is that money resolutions have been brought forward for Bills that received their Second Reading later than this one, which strikes me as entirely unfair.

The Government have argued that their response to the Bill is about timing and that they intend to wait until the Boundary Commission produces its report for Parliament before progressing. They have taken a leisurely approach to considering the Bill, as it has already been five months since it received its Second Reading. I did not expect to have to leave the Committee to have a baby in the time that is has taken the Bill to progress through Parliament—in December I reasonably expected it to have passed by the time I needed to take some time away from the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton raised the issue of granting a money resolution with the Leader of the House in three consecutive business questions, on 3, 10 and 17 May. Numerous points of order have been raised too. In February, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded that the House,

“should be given an early opportunity to debate the options for reform and to decide whether or not to continue the current boundary review”,

and that the Bill provided the opportunity to do so. However, the Government chose to ignore the views and expertise of Back Benchers.

It is also completely disingenuous of the Government to claim that they are blocking the Bill for financial reasons. On Monday the Leader of the House told us that the Bill would,

“place a potential financial burden of £8 million on taxpayers.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 600.]

However, waiting for the Boundary Commission to publish its report in the autumn will waste even more money. I am more than confident that the Prime Minister did not consider the “potential financial burden” when she appointed a series of new peers last weekend, which will cost taxpayers more than £1 million a year. Ministers have referred on numerous occasions to the fact that continuing with the boundary review is a Conservative manifesto pledge. The manifesto also included commitments to repeal the fox hunting ban and to address the size of the House of Lords. Where did those commitments go?

The Conservative party seems to have completely forgotten that it is in a minority Government. A lot has changed since 2011, when the original Boundary Commission process started. We have had two general elections and the Brexit referendum and its consequences. This is a hung Parliament and the Government’s mandate is completely different. For a minority Government to defy the will of the House in this way is deeply undemocratic.

The Government’s motives are clear: this is not about principles, but electoral maths. This is not the first time the Conservative party has tried to rig our democratic process in its favour. There is the ongoing scandal of the Government refusing to vote and then refusing to act on Opposition day motions. They have stuffed the Standing Committees of this House with a majority of their Members, even though they are a minority Government. There is also the £1 billion that they gave to the Democratic Unionist party in order to get their legislation through. At the local government elections on 3 May, the Government piloted discriminatory ID requirements that denied hundreds of legitimate voters their democratic right to vote.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is not persuading me with the comments she is making on the Bill. Part of the Bill—about preserving 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland—was very attractive to me and to my party, but the accusatory claims and allegations that this is anti-democracy are really turning me off supporting the Bill.

[Cat Smith]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes a look at the impact the Bill would have on the way our Parliament is made up. It strikes me that what the Government are doing is unquestionably about rigging the electoral system in favour of one party, instead of something that is balanced and reflects the view of the majority of the parties in this country.

[Mr Harper]

I did not try to intervene the first time the hon. Lady said it, but I do not think that having equal-sized constituencies can be described as rigging the system. It is a reasonable argument, and something that the Labour party is in favour of in principle—just not in practice.

[Cat Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I will come on to talk about the equalisation of constituencies. I think we will find that there is quite a lot of common agreement that there needs to be a Boundary Commission. The current state of constituencies in this country is not one I am defending. I am arguing for a Boundary Commission in order to have new boundaries, so that our constituencies can be more equally sized—something we would all like to see—but in a way that is fair and represents community ties.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I apologise, Chair, for being late; I have sprained my wrist. One of the issues about the size of constituencies is that one of the proposed constituencies under the new boundary review in Scotland would be the size of Cyprus. That is not practically possible. There is a wider point here, because when we lose all our Members of the European Parliament and Parliament takes back control, we will have fewer MPs to scrutinise all this legislation. Then, when they go back to their constituencies, they will have to try to get around by helicopter, given the size of the constituencies the Government are proposing.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I wish him a speedy recovery with his arm, which looks very painful.

I think we are all largely in agreement that the boundary review is needed; that is not something I am arguing against. Updating boundaries is a vital part of the functioning of our electoral system. However, it has to proceed in a way that benefits our democracy and not just one political party. The political case presented by the Government for reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 is completely flawed. The Hansard Society found no rationale for the Government’s decision, noting that there was a “real concern” that the number had been,

“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”

Cutting 50 MPs also presents a “crisis of scrutiny”, a concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society. The Government’s current plan, to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament without reducing the number of Ministers, will only increase the power of the Executive. That will make it more difficult for Back Benchers to challenge the Government, which in turn will reduce Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account. As we are witnessing today, the Government fear challenge, loathe scrutiny and have no respect for Back Benchers.

The need for parliamentary scrutiny has never been greater as our nation prepares to leave the European Union. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned, to lose 50 MPs at the same time as taking back powers from Brussels risks leaving the UK Government struggling to keep up with the day-to-day requirements of legislation. In short, what seemed like a good idea in 2011 is very different in 2018, because so much has changed. As MPs’ workload looks set to rise—

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the Committee that the question before us is whether we adjourn until next Wednesday. This is not a debate on the merits of the Bill or wider-ranging arguments.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. I will bring my remarks to a close. I believe that this is my one opportunity to put on the record my thoughts on the Bill, so I thank the Committee for indulging me slightly, and I apologise for any offence that may have been caused to the Chair.

Although this is the last sitting that I will attend, I hope that the Committee will continue to meet, because this is an important Bill and many aspects of it are important to our democracy. I believe that Governments should be held to account and that the power of the Executive should not get so strong that Back Benchers have no power. I hope that the Government are listening and that they will, at the earliest opportunity, table a money resolution to allow the Bill to progress. We can then argue about the merits of the Bill and debate its contents, and whoever takes my place on the Committee will be able to have the argument. The Committee has met time and again. I am sure that the Minister does not want to sit here every Wednesday morning, but I can assure her that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton will make sure that she is here every Wednesday until the money resolution is brought before the House.

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

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in looking at such things—not only the form he mentions, but paperwork to assist people with a visual impairment or those who need to register anonymously. This Government can be proud of those achievements, and I would be happy to discuss his points further with him.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Three thousand eight hundred: that is the number of people nationally with no fixed abode who are registered to vote. Does the Minister agree that that is woefully under-representative of the number of homeless people and families in this country? One way to make it easier for people with no fixed abode to register to vote would be to remove the requirement to print the form. Why is the group of voters with the least access to a printer the only one that has to print out their paperwork?

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Third sitting)

Cat Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

As one of the new intake of MPs in 2017, I am still getting to grips with how decisions are made and how futile the attempts of Back Benchers to get things done can be. I was told that Back Benchers could get something to become law by promoting a private Member’s Bill. Getting a First Reading is hard enough, but it is not insurmountable. Getting a Second Reading is nigh on impossible, because unless one is lucky enough to get into the top 20 in the private Member’s Bill draw, one is unlikely to get sufficient time to debate the issue. Even if sufficient time is granted, at least 100 MPs have to be present on one of the 13 allotted Fridays and then a majority of those voting have to vote for the Bill. To get to a Second Reading is a tall order.

At present there are 58 private Members’ Bills scheduled for the next sitting Friday on 15 June; 25 for Friday 6 July; 23 for Friday 26 October; and 18 for Friday 23 November. That is a total of 103 private Member’s Bills, the vast majority of which will never get a Second Reading, due to the lack of parliamentary time. When a private Member’s Bill does get through its Second Reading with a majority in the House on a Friday, surely the Government should respect the will of Parliament and grant a money resolution to allow the Bill to progress.

Earlier this morning, I looked up “money resolutions” on the Parliament website, which defines it as follows:

“A Money resolution must be agreed to by the House of Commons if a new Bill proposes spending public money on something that hasn’t previously been authorised by an Act of Parliament.

Money resolutions, like Ways and Means resolutions, are normally put to the House for agreement immediately after the Bill has passed its Second reading in the Commons.”

I ask hon. Members to note the word “immediately”.

The Bill passed its Second Reading on 1 December 2017. Five and a half months have passed and the Government are undemocratically disrespecting the will of Parliament, trying to smother this Bill by not granting a money resolution. This is a flagrant abuse of the customs and practices of this Parliament, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East has said. It is an attack on the processes of parliamentary democracy and on the few chances that Back Benchers have to influence and make changes. Parliament is not just the Government. The Government need to think very carefully about their disrespect for parliamentary democracy. Back Benchers need to be heard and respected.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record that the contents of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton have yet to be discussed in Committee because of the Government’s failure to table a money resolution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, they have had five and half months to do so and give us the opportunity to discuss the Bill.

The content of the Bill gained wide consensus across the House five and half months ago, passing its Second Reading by 229 votes to 44. I have previously raised this point: this is about the will of Parliament. A lot has happened since the 2018 boundary review, which the Bill seeks to replace. The 2018 review started before we even had the EU referendum, and the number of people on the electoral roll has increased significantly.

The current boundary review, which will come back to the House in October, uses the figures from December 2015, when there were 44.7 million people, compared with the 46.8 million people recorded this year. Those are 2 million people whose voices will not be heard in the current proposed boundary review but which could be heard if my hon. Friend’s Bill had a money resolution. We could then discuss the Bill and gain cross-party consensus, because there is huge will across the House to do so.

We want an accurate electoral roll to decide the boundaries for this House. That is incredibly important post the Brexit referendum, which means we will lose Members of the European Parliament. The idea of losing them at the same time as we lose 50 MPs, while maintaining the size of the Government payroll, is a slap in the face to democracy. It hands more power to Government and less power to the people, which is the exact opposite of the wide consensus of what Brexit was about in the first place. We want an accurate electoral roll to draw our boundaries.

We also want power to be given to Parliament. By not tabling a money resolution, the Government have shown contempt and denied us the opportunity to debate the Bill. They have not respected the, to be frank, limited powers of Back Benchers to introduce legislation. I hope the Minister will be able to offer us more today than she managed at our previous sitting.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond?