Overseas Electors Bill (Second sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The purpose of the Bill is to extend the franchise to British citizens overseas. Allowing citizens who were previously resident in the UK, as well as those previously registered, should they move overseas, goes a long way to achieving that. I suggest that to impose additional barriers in regulation goes against the grain of the measures set out in the Bill. The Minister will add a lot more information but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and of her contribution, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester for succinctly restating his arguments on a quite difficult subject. He was right to note today and last week that defining “residence”—what the amendment is about—is difficult.

As the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, has set out, we who support the Bill do not want to put additional barriers in the way of people who want to register to vote in UK elections, and that is the principle we are putting forward. Our intention is that there should be a wide and open enfranchisement, so we are sceptical about placing additional barriers in the way, in the form of burdensome definitions that might introduce more complexity than solutions.

On a practical note, however, the question of the existing framework arises. The hon. Member for City of Chester explained that an outline is found in section 5 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. His argument is that we should create secondary legislation to go alongside that. I understand the arguments that have been made in other places, which are, as always, helpful contributions to the broader debate, such as those of the Law Commission and the SAA, but my alternative view is that it would be better to use ministerial guidance.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the new section 1G that clause 1 would insert into the Representation of the People Act 1985, which would provide that electoral registration officers must have regard to ministerial guidance in determining applications for overseas electors’ registration and renewal. It goes on to state what the guidance may cover, which includes determining whether a person satisfies the residence condition.

I think guidance is a better route than secondary legislation for assisting registration officers in the matter of how they may determine residence. I say that because I do not want to put additional burdens of complexity or time on those who want to register. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has already made that argument. Also, perhaps we should leave things to the registration officers, who know best how to do their jobs. We discussed in the previous debate how much we welcome and value the way they do their jobs, and the hard work they put in. In my view, guidance would support them in their task better than would the time and complexity involved in trying to define things for them in legislation. It is better to leave it to their professional judgment to gauge residency, given the complexity of the task that both sides of the Committee have acknowledged.

I hope that my comments have been helpful to the Committee, and that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Christian Matheson]

I am grateful for the responses of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the Minister. A definition of residence is still an outstanding requirement, arising out of the Law Commission’s 2016 report. I suspect that as we extend the franchise we shall have to return to the idea of what constitutes a residence that will anchor overseas voters to a constituency. However, the Minister has addressed the concerns raised by the amendment. I am not entirely sure that I agree with her, but in the context of the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

Perhaps the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire or the Minister would prefer to respond to my first points before—

[Chloe Smith]

I am happy to deal with all the amendments together.

[Christian Matheson]

Then with your permission, Mr Robertson, I shall follow the Minister’s lead and speak to amendments 19 to 27, which are in my name. They essentially repeat the amendments on declaration requirements, but relate to the renewal of an overseas voting registration. I believe that the Bill has a number of areas of weakness regarding renewal requirements. If an elector is renewing using a paper form or email declaration, the information already held by the ERO—except for date of birth, for security reasons—may be pre-populated. If the elector is renewing on gov.uk, they will be able to declare that the information pre-populated in the reminder sent to them by the ERO remains true, rather than re-entering their address, for example. That will further reduce the information required for a renewal. It is an attempt by the Government to make the renewal process easier. However, they must be careful to update the online processes.

The policy statement indicates that overseas applications can be renewed online if a voter declares that the information pre-populated in the reminder remains true. However, at present, only a new overseas application can be made online, as the online service is not available for the renewal of overseas applications. Instead, a renewal application must be made on paper. Alternatively, the applicant is required to go through the whole process of applying online as a new overseas application. These amendments are consistent with our other amendments and would make the process of re-registration more secure.

[Glyn Davies]

I understand the points that Opposition Members have made. We all agree that the only people who should be entitled to register to vote are those who are eligible. We have to have steps in place to ensure that registration is restricted to those people. The Bill includes a number of what I consider to be sensible and precautionary provisions to determine the identity of someone applying as an overseas voter for the first time or renewing their registration, which supplement the existing requirements of individual electoral registration and other provisions.

The proposals set out in these amendments go against the grain of the important change that the Bill aims to achieve. Our ambition is to make it not harder for British citizens to register or renew but more straightforward. The amendments would require all declarations from overseas electors to include two attestations. I submit that that is not proportionate. The Minister will give much more detail on these points, but I hope that on the basis of reassurances from me and from her, Opposition Members will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. It seems to me that this group of amendments is in large part about the difference between a “must” situation and a “may” situation. For example, the hon. Member for Nottingham North is proposing that a set of requirements must be fulfilled, as is the hon. Member for City of Chester. The opening position of the Bill is that those requirements may be fulfilled when registration officers require them. I think that is the key difference.

Two reasons have been offered for these amendments. First, the hon. Member for Nottingham North laid out that he believes there ought to be a higher burden of proof on overseas electors than on domestic electors. Secondly, the hon. Member for City of Chester said that he wishes to see consistency among registration officers’ work, rather than discretion. I disagree with both of those arguments.

First, the Government see overseas electors as equal to domestic electors and do not accept the principle that they ought to be treated differently—that is the principal point of the Bill. I will come on to the important points that have been raised about fraud. Secondly, as I said in the previous debate, we in this Committee want to convey great respect for the work that electoral registration officers do, which we do best by respecting their professionalism and their ability to use discretion. From that position, we are proposing that they may—rather than must—ask for a set of requirements.

I will move on to the detail of the amendments—forgive me, Mr Robertson, but it may take me a while, as there is a fair amount in this group. First, let us deal with registration requirements. At the outset I can say that the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining the integrity of the electoral register and ensuring that only those who are entitled to register have an entry, which I hope is a common starting point for all of us.

As is the case under the current system, overseas electors will continue to be able to register using the digital service on gov.uk, as well as by using paper forms or, in some cases, by telephone. As a matter of status quo they are asked for their name, date of birth and national insurance number, and a range of other information. There is a separate attestation process for those who are unable to provide an NI number, but it is not a standard point. Again, that is a difference with the proposals made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.

The Bill sets out that the declaration must

“contain any other prescribed information and satisfy any other prescribed requirements”.

That may include other information that is requested or a requirement for the declaration to be attested if necessary. Existing provisions, which date back to 2001, set out that information requested by administrators can include, but is not limited to, name and present address, previous name if that has changed since the last application, and passport number in some circumstances.

On the specifics of national insurance numbers, at present overseas applicants who cannot provide an NI number or who cannot be verified against existing Government records are asked to provide an attestation as proof of identity. Under new measures, if they cannot provide a national insurance number, they may be asked to provide a certified copy of their passport or other documentation. If that is not possible, they will still be able to have their identity verified by another British citizen who is registered to vote in the UK, through providing an attestation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister have any actual numbers to back up the suggestion that overseas electors may not have those things? I ask that because we could be talking about a relatively tiny proportion of the overseas electorate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North pointed out, the number of individuals who may be enfranchised under the Bill could run to the millions. Does she have some numbers that could put the flesh on the bones of that statement?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking for that information, but I do not have it, nor do I think it is relevant. We would not say to a category of domestic electors, “Don’t worry—if it’s only small numbers, you’re not coming in”, nor would we say, “If you don’t have an email address or a telephone number, you’re not going on the register.” No Member would dream of saying that to one of their constituents. We should use the same principle here. I do not think the numbers would help the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and in any case I can confirm that I do not have them with me in Committee.

One germane point, however, is that we have committed to encourage applicants to provide an email address, because it is rather obvious that when we are talking about sending communications around the globe, email may be one of the quickest ways. However, as I say, we recognise that not all applicants will have an email address, so it is not right to make that a legal requirement.

I will move on to country of residence. Currently, electors are not asked how long they have lived in their current country of residence, and I put it strongly to the Committee that again, that is irrelevant to one’s eligibility to register to vote. An individual could have moved from country to country very rapidly, but that would not reduce their Britishness—the key tenet of the Bill is that one is British however far one has gone. That does not change whether someone has lived in a place for one day, 15 years or 15 years and one day, so I do not think it would serve a purpose for EROs to keep records of those periods of time in an elector’s life.

Moving on to voting offences, some of the amendments provide that the renewal declaration must require declarants to state that they are aware of voting offences under the RPA. I appreciate the basis on which those amendments have been tabled; as I said at the outset, we should all endeavour to reduce and indeed eliminate voter fraud and voting offences, but I am not sure that the renewal form is the right place to bring those offences to the attention of the elector. They are already brought to the attention of voters overseas, where they vote by post, in the postal voting pack that they receive. There is currently a requirement to include a statement on the initial application form that it is an offence to provide false information in the application and of the penalty for that offence, so we already have that. I do not think it is necessary to have more than that.

Furthermore, legislation currently prevents a person from having two declarations of the same date with different addresses and brings a declaration to an end if the same person seeks another declaration in a different constituency. That position will not change under the new proposals.

[Christian Matheson]

I am just seeking clarification: is there a mechanism by which the first constituency’s electoral registration officer is informed that the overseas voter has now registered in a second constituency and that the first constituency registration should therefore fall by the wayside?

[Chloe Smith]

It brings to an end the current or first declaration, as I say. I will be happy to confirm more precisely what that looks like from the position of the registration officer, which may be what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. The legal mechanism there is certainly that the first validity is brought to an end.

I come now to the absent voting arrangements proposed in amendments 12 and 27. I am not persuaded by what I see in those amendments that it is necessary to ask an elector whether they intend to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person, because, like any other elector, they can change their mind. I am not in the business of trying to make arbitrary distinctions between overseas and domestic electors. Any elector is permitted to change their mind on that, so I am not persuaded of the purpose that would be served by those amendments.

Turning to renewal, there is no renewal process for electors with an overseas elector’s declaration. The declaration itself lasts for 12 months, so if somebody wishes to remain an overseas elector, they must make a fresh declaration every year. A renewal process is being introduced in the Bill, requiring less information, not more, from electors at the point of renewal. An applicant’s identity will have been established as part of their original registration, so there is no need for an elector to provide all the same information when doing it again.

We are allowing EROs to pre-populate forms with the relevant details, and the gov.uk site will allow electors to confirm that the information pre-populated in the reminder that has been sent to them remains true. We will introduce an online method of doing that, which is a provision that does not currently exist but that we think will make re-registrations easier for voters. The Bill includes a power to make detailed provision on renewal declarations in secondary legislation; as with existing electoral legislation, I think that is the right place for the procedural details of applications.

The requirement for overseas electors to renew their registration annually is in close analogy to how we treat domestic electors, who have to reconfirm their details every year in order to appear on the electoral register. It helps to ensure that electoral registers remain accurate. As we all know, accuracy is one of the core measurements of the integrity of an election and of our democracy. As is currently the case, in the three months before a registration is due to expire, EROs will send two reminders to an elector that they need to re-register. The sending of those reminders will be made mandatory, and it will be possible to send them electronically.

Finally, I come back to attestations, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North began with. The amendments would require all declarations from overseas electors to provide two attestations—one from abroad and one from home. As I said at the outset, that is not the right approach, because it would create a fundamental difference between domestic and overseas electors. Currently, an attestation is needed only as a fall-back. The same may be the case for domestic voters, and comparisons could also be drawn with some of the more specialised processes that we use, for example for those who make anonymous registrations.

The key point is that to suggest that the fall-back position should be changed to a requirement of not only one attestation but two is quite unjust to an overseas voter. I return to my core point: these are voters and citizens like any other, and we should not seek to make that difference. It could be potentially fatally burdensome for a voter to have to find a person back at home to provide an attestation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said.

I hope that my remarks have been helpful to the hon. Members who proposed the amendments. I thank them for their important probing of the Bill’s details, but I hope they have been able to consider my response and will not press the amendments.

[Alex Norris]

I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I start with an apology; it has been brought to my attention that I referred to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire as the hon. Member for Monmouthshire. He has been far too kind to correct me. As mitigation, I have been listening to the musical “Hamilton” more than is healthy, where the battle of Monmouth features, but I apologise.

I return to what the Minister said; I noted that she said overseas voters are equal to any of us and are citizens like any other. I do not dispute that at all. When we participate on election day we will be indistinguishable—we will all have the chance to contribute one vote. That is quite right and I do not think there was any suggestion of changing that.

However, the idea that they are citizens like any other does not reflect reality: they are not when it comes to verifying their eligibility at an address, because the electoral registration officer cannot go round their house. To be fair, if my electoral registration officer was offered the chance to go to the Bahamas to verify an overseas voter, he might say yes to that. However, he is also the chief executive of our council so he does not have time. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the challenges, and the potential for fraud, are different. Therefore, we might need to match our verification process to that situation in a different way. That is not unreasonable and I might want to press the amendment to a vote.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that we would not want people to fall out of the process because they do not have a telephone number or an email address. I have some sympathy for that argument. The direction of travel of voter ID pilots means that lots of people in communities such as mine who do not have passports, driving licences or any of the conventional ways to verify their address might be subject to the same rules. I hope that will not be the case.

[Chloe Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister shakes her head, which I am pleased to see. She is clearly passionate about equal access. As we follow the voter ID reforms that are being suggested, I will continue to remind her of that.

I will finish on localism. The Minister is not keen for amendment 36 to be in the Bill because she wants to leave the experts in the local community some leeway. I am a big fan of localism, but when it comes to our democracy and to the verification of voters, I do not think there is much of an argument for variation among communities. We ought to set a clear position in this place on the rules of the game, for everyone’s benefit. If the voter ID pilots became standard across the board, would electoral registration officers be told, “We don’t mind whether you want some sort of photo ID at a polling station.”? I do not think they will have to be given leeway in that sense, so I do not see why there would be leeway in this sense. With that in mind, I will not contribute any further but I do intend to press for a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I will keep this brief. The Government absolutely recognise the time constraints that can arise when dealing with last-minute applications to register to vote, particularly those from overseas electors because, as we have already discussed, there is more toing and froing involved. For example, the Cabinet Office has fully funded the additional costs faced by local authorities for processing overseas electors and, indeed, all new burdens resulting from the introduction of individual electoral registration in 2014.

We have also already amended the timetable for parliamentary elections in order to maximise the time available for postal vote packs to be printed, posted and returned. It is the standing position to encourage electors to register as early as possible ahead of the registration deadline. I briefly mentioned earlier that introducing online re-registration would help somewhat because that will reduce time elsewhere in the process.

Taken together, those measures seek to avoid a peak of last-minute applications. However, in response to the amendments, I return to an argument that I have used elsewhere. I do not think it would be right to create another difference between overseas electors and UK resident ones, which is what would happen if different registration deadlines are set for both groups. Consequent to that, the process would run into the challenges articulated by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, which is that there are other parts of the electoral timetable. He called it “electoral Jenga” and I think I might use that phrase myself. It is correct to say that a change in one part of the timetable would affect other important parts of it. That is simply how our democracy has to fit together in those final weeks. I would not want that to be put in peril or for a different approach to overseas and domestic electors to put anybody at a disadvantage.

I will also briefly point out a technical error in the proposed new clause. I never like saying such things to a Back-Bench Member. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will have worked late into the night to pull this together, and I cast no aspersion on him or his efforts, but I think he might have intended to refer to the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008, which revoked those made in 2001. Given that the proposed new clause is technically flawed, I urge the Committee not to support it.

[Alex Norris]

I thank everyone for their contributions. To answer the substantive point from the hon. Member for Beckenham, the amendment relates to working days, because that is the language of the timetable. If 19 working days became 17 because of a weekend, the proposal would still get my support.

With regard to the hon. Member for Kingswood, we are lucky to have two successive Ministers for the constitution who really take this issue seriously, because that is not a given. I can understand that for the vast the majority of people this stuff might seem a bit dry, but it is exceptionally important. It is also exceptionally important that those who lead take it seriously, and that is greatly appreciated.

I slightly disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman’s point, despite his neat reference to “electoral Jenga”. The one thing we know about that tangle of wires, which is how I would characterise it, is that many processes are going on simultaneously. I do not think that the proposed change would impact on the strand relating to the nomination of candidates. The example has been given of an individual whose only reason for seeking registration is their enthusiasm for a candidate whose place on the ballot is not secure, but that is a tiny part of a vaster whole and it would not be good to let it injure the whole process.

All electoral administrators will appreciate the kind words of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. However, I gently express my fear that, although we have been keen to support them and their hard work, I do not think that the Bill reflects that support. We have looked continually at the reports of 2016 and 2017, and at the survey work done elsewhere, but we have not followed their suggestions.

I am grateful for the Minister’s gentle point about my typo. For that reason, I will not press the new clause to a vote. However, I still think that it would have taken the Bill in the right direction, and I ask Committee members to reflect on it.

The Minister regularly says that she does not want a distinction to be made between overseas electors and those living in the UK. I understand that, but that would not be the case—and nobody has suggested that it should be—when it comes to the substantive issue of their participation in democracy. In practical terms, however, there is an obvious difference between the two groups—some thousands of miles’ worth in some cases. If we stopped people in the square to ask them whether overseas electors should be given more time to make an application and to receive and return a voting pack, I think that most of them would think that a sensible idea.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, because of the very good reason that has been pointed out. However, I hope that colleagues will continue to reflect on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 34, after “name” insert “and date of birth”.—(Christian Matheson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

The amendment would delay the enfranchisement of many overseas citizens who are calling for the right to vote in our elections. On that basis, the amendment is unjustifiable, and I hope the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw it.

[Chloe Smith]

I echo what my hon. Friend says. The new clause makes the important point that we should work to raise awareness of voter registration and how people should take part in our democracy. However, it would be wrong to delay the implementation of the Bill while we conduct that assessment, which is what the amendment asks us to do. Too many British citizens overseas have been denied the right to vote for too long and it is not right to say that implementing the Bill must be contingent on a report and an exercise.

The Electoral Commission runs campaigns before elections to ensure that people are aware of when and how to register to vote and anything else they need to know. As part of its public awareness campaigns ahead of elections, it has noted that it will

“run activities overseas and work closely with the FCO and others to ensure that newly eligible British citizens understand what they need to do to register.”

The Government will work with the commission in communicating the new provisions. I hope billions of citizens around the world are following our proceedings from this Chamber as we speak, but if that is not the case, we have also committed to improving messaging on gov.uk, where people can find the information when they need it.

[Christian Matheson]

Having not pressed previous amendments to a vote that would provide greater time limits for electoral registration officers or for overseas electors to vote, I am concerned there will still be too much pressure or too little time for overseas voters. As part of the programme, there is a role for the Government and perhaps one of its agencies to promote eligibility, perhaps on gov.uk. I accept that the Minister has confidence in gov.uk, and will have to consider whether to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The first point that I want to make in relation to this pair of amendments—which goes more to the arguments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester—is that the Government have already produced an extensive impact assessment on the Bill, as would be expected. That report has, I am sure, been essential bedtime reading for all members of the Committee and many others. It is not necessary to carry out a second assessment of the kind of material that is already in the impact assessment, and I join to that a general point: it would be wrong to delay the enfranchisement of British citizens overseas through the publication of further reports. I see a common thread in a number of amendments, and I am not persuaded that we should hold on that enfranchisement until we have a library shelf full of reports.

Let me address some of the more specific details that have been raised. First, I stress again the Government’s commitment to funding additional costs that arise from the proposed measures—I said that last week and I say it again. I send that message of reassurance out.

The hon. Member for City of Chester addressed the workload and concerns of administrators. We are addressing the costs, and I am very sympathetic to the arguments about their work. I work closely with the Association of Electoral Administrators, as well as other bodies, and I listen to administrators. I will carry on doing that as a matter of course. I do not need a report tied up with a bow to tell me to do it—I will do it week in, week out, because it is my role. None the less, let it be taken that I take that part of the proposal very seriously. I hope that has addressed that point.

On the issue of boundaries, discussed by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, as she and all hon. Members know, boundary reviews are run by the Boundary Commissions and take into account overarching electorate numbers—they make no distinction between overseas voters and domestic voters, and the way that the hon. Lady explained new clause 1 makes it very clear that that is the starting point we are all going from. It is also the case that the legislation that we work to requires that they are taken from a set point in time and that that will happen regularly into the future.

That legislation is absolutely supported by the Government. Whether we are or are not having arguments in other Committee Rooms at other points in our Wednesdays, we support regular reviews in the future that take into account overarching electorate numbers and, therefore, we do not need a further report that checks on those electorate numbers. The Boundary Commissions’ work can properly take into account where overseas electors are and apportion them.

I very much understand the geographical point made by the hon. Lady. Were what she described to happen, I certainly would expect that to be a matter of discussion with the Boundary Commission. Independent as it is, I imagine that it would observe that phenomenon and wish to highlight it. I would be happy to look into the practicalities of that further if that work were to give rise to results that were surprising or undesirable. The Boundary Commissions are scrupulously independent, and quite rightly so, so I do not at all wish it to be heard from me today that I am suggesting that I would change their work—I am absolutely not—but I am saying that their work exists and does the data job that new clause 1 is asking for. I would be very happy to look into any further issues should they arise in the future.

Let me move on to the hon. Lady’s other fundamental question, which was about the creation of overseas constituencies. She and I have discussed the matter before, and we are probably all aware that there are several ways in which it could theoretically be arranged. There is some variation around the world: some countries take the constituency approach, but generally other democracies that allow overseas voting use the connection principle, as we do. Our policy in the Bill is to continue with that principle, which requires electors to have a connection to the part of the country in which they last resided. That is a bedrock of British democracy and it is important to maintain it. I understand and respect the argument for a different configuration of voters, but I am not persuaded by it personally, and nor will the Government support it. Nor is it what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire advocates in his Bill.

Several points were raised about new clause 6, which would require a report on voter fraud, and new clause 15, which would require a report on issues relating to offences committed as a result of the changes made by the Bill. Again, it is worth stating the general principle: the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening our electoral processes and enhancing public confidence in the rigour of democratic processes. I described earlier how measures in the Bill will help to achieve that, such as the limit on the number of attestations per attestor for overseas electors, which will guard against fraud.

Hon. Members can be confident that I am committed to maintaining and reinforcing our democracy and strengthening electoral integrity. There are certainly other measures now or soon to be before the House that relate to achieving that across our democracy. Do we need an extra report under the Bill to help us to do that? I do not think so. First, the Electoral Commission already publishes annual reports on electoral fraud in UK elections. That is an important safeguard, and it is the Electoral Commission’s role to oversee it, rather than the Government preparing an extra report. Secondly, I do not believe that there is a body of evidence to suggest that fraud is a problem that relates specifically to overseas electors. The hon. Member for Nottingham North touched on that argument earlier today, but at this point I do not think there is an evidence base for pointing the finger at that issue.

There is no question of the Government or the Electoral Commission ceasing to keep voter fraud under review. We are vigilant about it, as indeed are the registration officers and local authority staff who manage these things—it is their role as much as anybody else’s. All parts of the system are vigilant about voter fraud. We will keep all arrangements under consideration and make improvements where we see that they are needed. However, I do not accept that a report is necessary for that, as the new clauses argue. We would seek to do it anyway.

I hope that I have been helpful to the Committee by drawing out themes common to the amendment and new clauses. The key point is that I will continue to observe the practical implications for fraud and for the hard work of administrators, and the effect on our national data sets, of the distribution of voters across the country. I ask the Committee to agree that a report is not necessary.

[Christian Matheson]

I do not wish to detain the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response, and I have no problem with finding myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, whom I consider a friend. He is showing great patience as we test and probe the details of his Bill.

I remain concerned about the Bill’s effect on constituencies, which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon raised, and about the lack of clarity about how voters might join a constituency. However, we have made decent progress today, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Glyn Davies.)

Overseas Electors Bill (First sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson]

I think that is a little bit much. If those arguments apply to domestic 16 and 17-year-olds, should they not also apply to overseas voters? If a review is to take place—as I have said, in 2004 the Electoral Commission called for one—is not the Bill the perfect opportunity and vehicle for that review, and is not clause 1 the perfect clause with which to undertake it?

The Power commission explained the recommendations, stating:

“Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility.”

There is absolutely no reason why that should apply to UK-based 16 and 17-year olds but not to 16 and 17-year-old UK citizens who live overseas. The report went on to state:

“We recognise that few people take an interest in a sphere of life or an area from which they have been deliberately excluded. Reducing the voting age to sixteen would obviously be one way of reducing the extent of such exclusion for many thousands of young people, and of increasing the likelihood of their taking an interest, and taking part, in political and democratic debate.”

Those recommendations are increasingly relevant in a Parliament where only 2% of MPs are aged under 30, despite 16% of the UK’s population being aged 18 to 29. I confess that I do not know what percentage of the UK’s overseas citizens are aged under 30; I will try to dig that out. Young voices are consistently under-represented in our politics. In the period from 1979 to 2017, the average age of MPs at elections has been consistently around 50 years old—not that I am complaining, of course, about a candidate being 50 years old.

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

Was it your big year this year?

[Christian Matheson]

It certainly was. Government Members may well be surprised to hear that I was indeed 50 this year—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] I am afraid none of us is getting any younger.

The statistics are similar at local level, with just 2% of councillors aged 18 to 29. There is no better time to begin listening to the voices of our young people and properly representing their views. As MPs, we vote every day on issues that will have a direct impact on their generation—university fees, zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage, to name but a few—yet we refuse to allow them a say.

There is an argument, with which I have a lot of sympathy, that if somebody chooses to live abroad, it is perhaps less important that they have a say in what is going on in the United Kingdom, and that the decisions need to be taken by those who will be affected by them; but for young people, more so than for adults who might be permanently resident abroad, there is an importance in having a say, because it has an impact on their future.

I give the example of a young person who is living abroad but wants to return to education or university in the UK; the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned that she came back to school in the UK. Whereas there could be criticism of expanding the franchise overseas to everybody who wants to vote, no matter how long they have been abroad, those young people have a greater stake in having the vote, because they may choose to have a future back in the UK, separate from their parents or guardians.

What are the Government doing to ensure that this vital section of our society is being listened to? What conversations has the Minister had about the views of young voters? Perhaps now is not necessarily the time for the Minister to consider that, but I put the question out there. The Government can no longer ignore the issue.

Voices from the Votes at 16 coalition continue to demand action. The coalition is made up of more than 60 member organisations, including the British Youth Council, the Children’s Rights Alliance For England, Barnardo’s, the Electoral Reform Society, the Inter- generational Foundation, the YMCA, Christians on the Left and Oldham Youth Council. That reminds me that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) had a private Member’s Bill on that very subject, relating in his case to 16 and 17-year-old UK residents, as opposed to 16 and 17-year-olds overseas.

How will the Government act to involve our young voters in politics and ensure that their voices are heard, and to avoid isolating them before they have even had a chance to exercise their right to vote? Not if but when votes at 16 become a reality nationally, as they will under a Government willing to listen to the evidence and to the voices of young people, that must be accompanied by compulsory political education in schools, ideally at key stage 4.

Who could argue against our young people studying in depth—for the first time in history, I hasten to add—how this place works, who it works for and what the different parties that sit here represent? We all have school visits in our constituencies and down here in the excellent education centre, which is a real asset to Parliament. When those visits are opened up to questions, the youngsters will look around and shuffle a bit—regardless of whether they are primary or secondary school pupils—waiting for the first person to ask a question. The teacher will eventually pick someone and say, “Right, Jane or Jonny, you ask the question.” Once the ice is broken, there is always huge interest and lots of different questions, as young people demonstrate their desire for more knowledge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

(Montgomeryshire) (Con): I will take your advice, Mr Robertson, and I will move straight to the amendment, although I did have some quite important remarks to make.

I understand that there have been calls, including today, for the voting age to be lowered, and there are different views across the House of Commons. Indeed, I have expressed my own views. I am surprised the Opposition spokesman did not dig out some of the quotes on votes at 16 that I have made in the past. However, there are no plans to lower the voting age and the House of Commons has repeatedly voted against it.

I want to stress that this is a single-purpose Bill, with the aim of removing the arbitrary 15-year rule for overseas electors. Whether one is in favour of or against votes at 16, that is not part of the Bill. If it were, it would completely dominate and change the Bill. I hope on that basis, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon will withdraw the amendment.

[Chloe Smith]

May I add my voice to those congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire on securing this important Bill? I fully support its principles and intention. We have laid those arguments out at several prior stages, so I am confident that we know what we are dealing with.

I would add my remarks on amendment 1. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon for tabling it and the hon. Member for City of Chester for adding his capacious comments to the argument. As my hon. Friend has set out, there is a range of views across the House on the subject of the voting age but it is a fact that the House of Commons has repeatedly voted against. The Government also stated in their manifesto a commitment to retain the voting age at 18. That being the case, we are carrying out that promise.

I will add that the Government fully and passionately recognise the importance of engaging young people in decision making. We are working in partnership with young people in the form of numerous civil society organisations such as Bite the Ballot, the British Youth Council and Operation Black Vote, to increase engagement of young people across the country in our precious democracy.

We have also taken the opportunity to use events such as the suffrage centenary year and National Democracy Week, which we ran for the first time this year, to encourage that further. I want to impress the Committee with my strong support for the engagement of young people in general, but that is not for this Bill.

Although the hon. Member for City of Chester tried to inveigle us into believing that this would be the perfect vehicle, which I think were his words, he later conceded that now is perhaps not the time to consider these issues. Once he has sorted out whether this is or is not the perfect vehicle, I can confirm that I do not think that this is a very good vehicle at all for the argument because—

[Christian Matheson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

No, I will not. I will be brief. The hon. Gentleman has had ample time to put his arguments. The Bill is not a moment for a “democratic experiment”, to quote the hon. Gentleman further. It is also not the moment to fracture the franchise; it is a moment to extend the franchise. It is not right to make the franchise one thing in one sense and another thing in another sense.

I address that argument directly to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, who has rightly brought the argument here today in a spirit of wanting to explore the issues, and I applaud her for that. She said at the outset that she wanted this to be an exploratory debate, and I am grateful that we have had that today. The bottom line is that the Bill seeks to do something different. It is about extending the franchise geographically; it is not about the age at which the franchise starts, and I do not think that it would be a wise course to have two different age starting points for the franchise within the democracy that we hope to sustain for UK parliamentary elections. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment on that basis. I look forward to making progress through the Bill.

[Layla Moran]

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I do not agree that this is not the time to discuss this matter, or that we should not vote on it. It may well have been voted down in the past, but let us face it: the shifting sands of politics are moving so fast that I do not even know what happened yesterday, let alone what will happen tomorrow. What I do know, though, on behalf of many of the young people I speak to day in, day out, as I have done for the whole of my career, is that this is absolutely the time to press such an amendment to a vote, and that is what I intend to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

I very much associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. He put that very well; I too know Harry Shindler.

The Bill will only enfranchise those who can prove a real and discernible connection to a UK address via a previous registration or residence. At its core is the need to scrap the 15-year rule for overseas voters and rightly ensure that this group can vote for life.

On amendment 33, I too recognise the valid contribution of individuals employed, for example, as Crown servants in the British Council or military personnel overseas. I am pleased that there are existing provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to ensure that those categories of electors are not disenfranchised by the current 15-year rule. The Bill will mean that no other British citizen who was previously resident or registered in the UK will be blocked from voting in this country. That will apply equally to those who were employed overseas by a UK public authority or employed by a designated humanitarian agency. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will feel able to withdraw amendment 33.

[Chloe Smith]

This is a very interesting amendment. My understanding of what the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to do developed slightly as he made his comments, and I am grateful for the way in which he explained what his amendments seek to do. I will take them in two halves and respond to some points in relation to amendment 33 before coming on to the other two amendments.

On amendment 33, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman recognises the challenge of the residency test. At the moment, there is no way for a person to join the register if they had been resident in the UK, as opposed to previously registered. Those are the two different concepts that we are dealing with, and I think the hon. Gentleman recognises that in what he is trying to do with amendment 33. I welcome that, because the residency issue aims to put right an injustice that, for example, could apply to the children of British citizens who moved abroad. I believe that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon might have been such an example. Having left the UK at such a young age, she could not possibly have been registered in this country, but of course, she had been resident here.

[Layla Moran]

I was resident here, but my brothers and sisters were not. They were born after me, and were born abroad. Are they less British than I?

[Chloe Smith]

There we go. It is very helpful to have such personal experience of the issues raised in the Bill. However, I feel duty bound to say that the Bill might not help in the instance of the hon. Lady’s brothers and sisters, although it would help in her own instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

When these issues were first discussed many years ago, there was a five-year deadline, which became 20 years and then 15 years. In those days, we did not have the internet and Skype, and we did not have the ongoing communication and connection between people living abroad and this country. We also clearly had far fewer people who travelled to work in other countries for several years and who kept their main home there but came back from time to time, whether to visit families or not. Does the Minister agree that the arbitrary definition to which she has referred relates to a different context from the world we live in now?

[Chloe Smith]

That is correct. The premise of the Bill is that the world has grown smaller in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes and that people are, or can if they wish to be, much more in touch with their home country. The point is that we are seeking to enfranchise those people who wish to be. We are throwing open that door, rather than opening it an inch at a time.

I will pick up on the reference to Mr Shindler, whom several hon. Members present know. I say this with the greatest respect, and I do not wish to be mawkish, but he is very elderly. Alas, if very elderly people were put in the position of being allowed in one year at a time, I do not think that would necessarily bode well for someone his age being able to get the justice that many of us feel that he and others deserve. I hope that that suffices as a thought towards amendments 34 and 35.

Let me come on to two other very important points that have been raised: the burdens that might be placed on registration officers, and how the Bill helps. Those points are absolutely relevant to this section of the debate. The point has been bandied about that registration officers should fear the Bill because it places new burdens on them, but that need not be the case. I want to send out a message to reassure members of the Committee and, of course, the registration community—the community of EROs, who work so incredibly hard to run our registration systems and then, with their colleagues, run our elections. New burdens that arise from this Bill will be funded by central Government. That is clear in the impact assessment; it has been made clear by my Department; and I make it clear again here today. The broader arguments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester about local government funding pressures are not relevant. New burdens from this Bill will be funded. I am very happy to reiterate that. It is there in the impact assessment and here in our discussion today.

There is a precursor to that—I can give a record of credit to it—which is that we did the same for the individual electoral registration reform. We have been fully funding electoral registration officers for the additional burdens brought by that reform. Indeed, we then went on to make further reforms to ease those pressures, because that is, of course, what we all want. We are not in the business of asking people to do more work for fun. We are in the business of asking people to do that work so that we have a flourishing democracy in which individuals’ voices count and British citizens are properly enfranchised and involved. Again, that is the fundamental point of this Bill.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

To put this issue to bed, could the Minister say a little more? She is right about the financial implications of the Bill. The explanatory notes state clearly:

“The Government plans to provide funding for electoral registration officers’ costs, in accordance with the new burdens doctrine.”

Could the Minister give the Committee a little more information on how that would work? For example, would an ERO who had one application to register under the procedure get a different amount from an ERO who had 100 applications? How will the funding work?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to add further clarity. Essentially, the answer remains simple: all new burdens that arise from this Bill will be funded. I can also reassure the Committee that I am in close touch with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Commission, of course, and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. They are all part of the wider community of registration officers and their colleagues in the relevant parts of local government who do such hard and important work for our society and whom we as a Government seek to support every step of the way.

On future reform, the UK Government, in partnership with the Governments of Scotland and Wales, are seeking to alleviate some of the pressures that relate to the canvass process in our electoral systems. That is another good modernisation opportunity and it will also relieve the pressures that registration officers can find themselves under from some of the aged processes in our electoral law for registering people. I am absolutely in the business of supporting our registration officers, finding ways to help them in their work and, specifically in the case of this Bill, ensuring that any new burdens are met.

Let me turn to some of the smaller changes proposed in the Bill. They are smaller compared with the big point of principle, but of course they are not small at all to an administrator whose job it is to operate the system. I can confirm that we will reduce the amount of information that an elector needs to supply in a renewal of registration. We are going to give EROs a more streamlined system for processing those renewals and recommend email as a method of communication between the ERO and the elector. There are a number of other ways in which we can help streamline those processes so that the Bill can achieve its really important goal—that big principle—while also creating a system that EROs will find operable and easy to play their part in as we extend the franchise to where it should be extended.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to colleagues on both sides of the Committee for contributing to an interesting discussion. We have probably set a good shape for the rest of our consideration of the Bill. We have had a discussion about the pragmatic versus the purist. I am not a daft lad—I hope Members have noticed that—so I can read a room, and I get a clear sense that we want a pure and full implementation. I will make my remarks with that in mind.

I was excited to hear the Minister say that there is no desire for gradual or partial admittance or delay, and that if someone is turned away from a polling station and does not come back, that constitutes a denial. I will hold her to that in future sittings and beyond. I was glad to hear the positive messages about resourcing, but we need to understand that things start from the context of deficit: University of East Anglia research from 2016 says that 43% of EROs have suffered real-terms cuts, and in the EU referendum only one quarter of the 254 local authority electoral authorities felt sufficiently resourced to do their jobs. When those new resources are introduced, it must be understood that the existing resources are not sufficient. We have clearly heard today the Minister’s desire to provide resources to electoral registration officers, and I am excited about that.

I hope there will be clear support for the 33 recommendations in the association’s report, which it produced after the 2017 general election, on how to improve elections. If they receive that support, EROs will be able to do their jobs properly and that would enrich all elections. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 15th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

In closing, I want to ask the Minister a question, because there has been some suggestion that in the legislation underpinning the new 5 September boundaries there is a time limit within which an order has to be brought before the House. We have heard the reasons as to why the Government do not want to do that, but I would be interested to know whether they have had any legal advice about whether the time limit exists and can be ignored and on what basis it can be ignored. Otherwise, we may find that there is more legal pressure for them to introduce the order, which has apparently not yet been drafted, within the time limit specified by the parent legislation. If the Minister makes a contribution, perhaps she might address that point.

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

I will make a few comments this week. The first is to extend my sympathy and my very best wishes to the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I, too, am a relatively new parent, and I entirely understand how very difficult things must be for him and his family. We all wish his family well.

On the point that the hon. Member for Lincoln made, I am afraid her anger is misplaced in being directed at me. It is not for me to answer as to why we gather here every Wednesday to discuss adjourning. That is for you, Mr Owen, or the Member whose Bill this is. All arguments have been made about the status of the Bill. There are few arguments to add that would be fresh to this Committee, so I will not try to do so. Nor will I bring to this place arguments that relate to the Overseas Electors Bill, which will rightly be discussed in another Committee.

I am none the less happy to account to Parliament for the progress of the order. I can confirm that the legislation requires it to be prepared as soon as may be; that is the legal position, as set out in legislation. There need be no further secret advice of any kind; it is there for all to see. Therefore, the order is being prepared and the House will absolutely have its chance to examine it in line with the legislative process that we are following. I should note that it was of course this House—Parliament—that agreed and set out that process.

In closing, I will just offer a little further information to the Committee, which I hope might be of interest and which is slightly in response to the hon. Member for City of Chester, who chose this morning to talk of politics and absurdity. However, he may like to reflect on what happened in the fifth boundary review, which, Mr Owen, you may recall was carried out under a Labour Government.

The hon. Gentleman may like to know about the reports and the orders at that time. I am talking about a period from 2004 to 2007—it took a little time to do the work—when the reports and orders were done separately for each nation of the United Kingdom. He may already know that the report for England was handed to the Government in October 2006 and the order was laid in Parliament four months later. He may like to know that the report for Northern Ireland was handed to the Government in September 2007 and the order was laid in Parliament six and a half months later; and that the report for Wales was handed to the Government in January 2005 and the order was laid in Parliament a whole 10 and a half months later. The hon. Member for Glasgow East may be delighted to know that the report and order for Scotland were done a little quicker—inside 2004—but a maximum time of 10 and a half months is something that members of the Committee may like to reflect upon when they talk party politics, because it was the Labour party that achieved that.

Question put and agreed to.

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Overseas Electors Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

It is a pleasure to bring this motion before the House. I will explain a little about the issues in the Bill. First, let me lay out what the Bill does: it seeks to extend the basis on which British citizens resident outside the UK qualify to participate in parliamentary elections by removing the arbitrary 15-year rule, which prevents British citizens living overseas from registering to vote.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for his work in getting the Bill to this point and the effort he has put in to engage with Members across the House to ensure that it has support. I would like to take this opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to the Bill and their desire to see it succeed. I am very proud to support this policy and this Bill. I would like to ensure that the financial element is set out clearly for the House, and I hope that this resolution will then allow the Bill to move forward to Committee stage.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I speak as a former Minister for the Constitution. Does my hon. Friend agree that although this is a private Member’s Bill, which has been promoted and taken forward excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), there was a manifesto commitment from the present Government to enfranchise overseas electors, building on their work dating back to October 2016? The whole electoral community has been fully engaged and consulted on the progress of this reform, which is absolutely crucial to enfranchising millions of overseas voters.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him for his work in stewarding this very important reform to this point. He is absolutely correct that that engagement has taken place because he did much of it, and I am very grateful to him for that. He is also absolutely right to remind the House of the Government’s manifesto commitment. It is one that we take very seriously and hope to see enacted as soon as possible for the benefit of British voters.

I would like to address the amendment to the money resolution tabled by the Opposition. It would limit spending under this legislation to £10,000 in any financial year. That limit would remain until the financial year after the Minister—perhaps me—lays before the House a report on spending incurred under the legislation. To put this far more simply than the amendment, that means that there would not be enough money to implement the Bill, and yet the Bill is about enfranchising British citizens. It is about ensuring and broadening participation in our democracy. It is about giving the vote to people who do not currently have that right because they have moved abroad, but who are none the less British. It is an outrage that Her Majesty’s Opposition are acting in direct opposition to these aims.

Let us start with a matter of principle: in no electoral system do the Government set out how much they plan to spend on registering electors and then register only that many accordingly. That is not how we run our democracy. The Opposition talk of the need to give a voice to the under-represented—it is a theme that they like—but here they are blocking measures that do just that. These measures enfranchise those who were previously registered or resident in this country, and overseas voters are one of the most under-registered groups of all, at about 20% of those eligible.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to the House the consequences of agreeing the amendment?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will: the amendment would simply starve the Bill of the money that it needs to do its job. It is a blocking amendment, a wrecking amendment—it would do nothing less than stop the policy from taking effect. We think that the policy is important, because it starts from a matter of principle, and we think that the Government should support that principle with the necessary spending. Let us be in no doubt about what the amendment would do. I will offer three reasons why I think the amendment should be rejected: it is convoluted, unrealistic and incoherent.

To start with the first of those, the amendment is byzantine in its wording and unnecessarily confusing on an issue that really ought to be clear. Parliament has already agreed this policy, on Second reading at a level of principle, so nothing can be clearer than saying to our fellow British citizens that we think they ought to have the vote. This amendment sullies that principle by putting obstacles in its way.

[Chris Skidmore]

On my calculation, £10,000 spent on the potentially 3 million British nationals abroad who would be enfranchised by the Bill works out at 0.3p per elector. Are the Opposition really saying they value the votes of British citizens living abroad at 0.3p each?

[Chloe Smith]

In many ways, it is even worse than that. I think the Opposition are saying to overseas electors that their votes do not matter a jot and that they do not want them in our democracy, because they are trying to block a Bill that would enable them to participate.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

If the last two years have taught us anything, it is that overseas electors are keen to be involved in discussing the politics of this country. They are interested in our politics and feel loyalty towards our country. Is this not the moment to say to them absolutely clearly, “We value you; you continue to be British citizens; we want you in our democracy.”?

[Chloe Smith]

That is precisely right. Again, we should look at the principles involved in this policy question. We are talking about stopping the abrupt disfranchisement of people after an arbitrary amount of time living overseas, which is a deep and terrible injustice to many people. I could mention to the House the case of Harry Shindler. He is war veteran who has fought for this country and who also happens to be one of the oldest members of the Labour party in the country, yet that party will not do him the courtesy of supporting his efforts to overcome this injustice.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Can I just check something? If I decide to go and live outside the United Kingdom, could I register to vote in Pimlico, where I currently rent a flat, and be an elector in that constituency?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes. I think it is basically the hon. Gentleman’s deepest wish that he should live outside the UK. As I understand it, that is the point of the Scottish National party.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

May we return for a moment to my old friend Harry Shindler? He is 97 years old and has lived in Italy for much of his life, but he is stoically British. He fought at Anzio, where he watched his friends die, and has since sought to establish memorials to them, and he has been honoured for so doing. Furthermore, he is not one of the oldest members, but the oldest member of the Labour party. Can my hon. Friend suggest any reason why the Labour party would want to prevent that old man from voting?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to stick to the money resolution, as you should know better than anyone, Sir Roger. I want to get on with this, so please can we deal with what is in hand? I do not expect the Minister to be driven off course.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I will return to the finance matters in front of us.

I will explain why the amendment to the money resolution is unrealistic. The figure in the proposal, £10,000 per annum, is just 1% of the estimated cost of implementing the Bill. We have published a detailed impact assessment, which I am sure hon. Members will have read, and it outlines how much we expect the measures to cost. I am not backward in coming forward about the amount: we think it will cost £1 million per annum over 10 years. I will put that into context in a moment and explain why we think it is an appropriate figure.

If any Bill becomes law, it should be properly funded, so that is the starting point.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

In my time in the House, Oppositions have normally criticised a lack of money for private Members’ Bills to carry out their objectives. It is highly unusual to try to limit the money to £10,000. When was the last time an Opposition did this?

[Chloe Smith]

As I understand it—you might know this better than I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was 1912; it was over a century ago.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman actually knew the answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I suspect he did, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it might be one of those facts that deserves to be more widely known from this Chamber: this was last attempted in 1912. It is a poor proposal to put to Parliament to suggest that a century-old device be used to block an important matter of principle.

The amendment is also fundamentally incoherent. It asks for a report on the operation of a policy that cannot be properly funded. What a waste of taxpayers’ money that would be. What a waste of valuable resources it would be to produce a report that would merely confirm that we needed the money that we had said we needed in the first place, to implement the policy. It would serve no purpose, and I think that this is a rather dishonest amendment.

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

The Minister has talked about wasting money. On Wednesday, we shall have met 15 or 16 times to debate the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), purely because the Government will not give us a money resolution so that we can progress with it. Does the Minister agree that if that money resolution were granted, it would save money in the long run?

[Chloe Smith]

No, because it is the simplest of consistencies to suggest that public money should not be wasted on a Bill that duplicates a measure that is already before the House. That applies to the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), about which we have spoken in another place and which I do not think need trouble the House today.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Is the Minister considering changing the Government’s position on extending the franchise to people under 18—for example, to 16 and 17-year-olds, who can give their lives for Queen and country?

[Chloe Smith]

As I think the hon. Gentleman will know, that matter is not in the Bill, so I will restrict myself to comments on the motion. It may come up in Committee, and I look forward to dealing with it then. What I will say is that those who are under 18 can go into battle only with their parents’ consent, which is an important qualification.

Let me now deal with the issue of costs. As the impact assessment says, we expect that over the next 10 years the Bill will result in the processing of more than 600,000 additional applications to register, which will result in an increase in the overall additional costs. Let us also not forget that registration costs for overseas electors are a little higher than those for domestic electors. The approximate cost to an administrator to register a British national who lives in the UK is £1.76 per application, while under the current system it costs £3.82 to process an overseas application. That is because the process is subject to higher international postage costs and more staff time spent on verifying and processing applications. For those who left the UK more than 15 years ago, and who will be enfranchised under this policy, there will be a small additional expense owing to the need to manually check evidence of a previous residency or registration and review any attestations.

Those are the reasons why costs will be higher. The Government are, of course, committed to funding the additional costs that derive from the Bill under what is called the new burdens doctrine: in other words, we do not envisage leaving that burden to local government. Central Government want to assist, and will therefore also face upfront implementation costs, for IT changes and the administering of polls, which will total about £0.9 million.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If someone leaves my constituency and lives abroad for 50 years, will that person still technically be in the constituency of Beckenham when they vote?

[Chloe Smith]

That is absolutely correct. I am happy to confirm that the intention is to maintain the way in which we currently represent voters who live overseas: they will accrue to the constituency in which they most recently lived.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I have a related question. Can the Minister confirm that there would be absolutely no way in which such a person could then migrate to another UK constituency?

[Chloe Smith]

That is correct. The application to register to vote would be tied to the constituency in which the person was last registered or resident. It should not be possible for any individual to say, “Right, I pick that one.”

I have told the House how much it costs to process overseas voters’ applications to register. There are also additional costs, comparatively speaking, associated with overseas electors taking part in polls, and that again is due to things like international postage, where the average cost is again a little higher than it is for domestic voters.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On the question of additional cost, do we expect the numbers to rise if there is no deal on Brexit?

[Chloe Smith]

I suspect that question has almost nothing to do with the Bill and very little to do with this money resolution to it, but what I would say is this: now is the time, as we change our relationships in this world, to speak loudly and proudly about Britain around the world. Now is the time that we should reach out to our citizens—our people around the world—and say, “You are British, and we are proud that you are British and we welcome you into our democracy.” That is what this Bill is doing; that is the principle that we on the Conservative Benches stand for. I look forward to hearing what those on the other side of the House stand for.

Let me give the House another important figure for context. The cost of putting this measure in place is £1 million, and the amendment suggests that that should be reduced to £10,000. For context, allow me to mention the cost of running a whole parliamentary election in the UK. We do not yet have the cost of the 2017 election, because not all claims have yet been settled, but the 2015 election cost almost £115 million, the 2010 general election cost £104.5 million and the one before that cost £71 million. The cost of parliamentary elections is increasing for other reasons, including more people choosing to vote by post.

Let us return to principle. What we are talking about here is a Bill that puts right an injustice, and that injustice is this: we think British citizens should not be abruptly disfranchised after they have lived for an arbitrary amount of time overseas. The amendment to the money resolution is no more than a shameful wrecking amendment that aims to stop people voting and stop people being enfranchised in this country, and it would cause chaos to the new scheme that the Bill aims to put in place.

We have set out in our impact assessment the costs that accrue to this policy in an entirely reasonable and justifiable manner. This amendment is neither of those things. I commend the money resolution to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

10. Whether he has made an assessment of the operation of recent voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Cabinet Office and the independent Electoral Commission published their respective findings in July that the pilots worked well. The overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their vote without a problem, and there was no notable adverse effect on turnout. The success of the pilots proves that the measures are reasonable and proportionate.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Can the Minister confirm that concerns about ethnic minority communities being adversely affected did not come to pass during the pilots? Is that not yet another reason why voter ID should be rolled out across the whole country as soon as possible?

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend is correct. Our surveying alongside the pilots found no indication that the ID requirements changed the reasons for not voting for any specific demographic group across the participating authorities. That is important evidence.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend knows well that elections are expensive to conduct. Sevenoaks District Council and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council do excellent jobs of conducting elections not just for themselves, but for this place and for the county council. Is she planning to consider ways of speeding up payments to those borough and district councils?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I am working with the Association of Electoral Administrators to see how the process can be improved. I take this opportunity to thank all the electoral staff in my hon. Friend’s council and elsewhere, who work so hard. The fact is that they have six months in which to submit an account. These things can sometimes be left to the last minute, which creates a bulge in the process, but we want to improve that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In terms of this so-called success, the Electoral Reform Society’s report says:

“The government must have a strange definition of success.”

It confirms that this is a waste of money and that it disenfranchises voters. When will the Government tackle the real electoral fraud issue, which is the spending breaches by the Labour, Lib Dem and Tory parties?

[Chloe Smith]

The Electoral Reform Society and people who quote from it have a strange definition of mathematics. The number that they put out on polling day was wildly inaccurate and scaremongering about this policy and they have some explaining to do.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Out of 45 million votes cast last year, there has been only one conviction for voter fraud, yet the Government seem determined to pursue voter ID, which stopped hundreds of people voting last year. When faced with real threats to our democracy, in the form of violations of campaign rules and finance laws, the misuse of voters’ personal data, and foreign interference in our elections and referendums, the Government have done almost nothing. Will the Minister tell us when the Government will get their priorities right and stop penalising honest voters while turning a blind eye to electoral abuses by the powerful?

[Chloe Smith]

There is an incredibly important principle at stake here, which seems to be missing from the Labour party. Either you want to stamp out electoral fraud or you do not. This policy is about that. Regardless of the number and the levels of the crime, we should tackle it and ensure it does not rob people of their votes. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman entirely forgets what his own party did in government by making this policy a fact in Northern Ireland.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government’s steel procurement policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the merits of the by-election system used to elect hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

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

The Government are clear that comprehensive reform of the House of Lords that requires legislation is not a priority for this Government. We would welcome working with peers on measures that could command consensus, so we welcome the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee, chaired by Lord Burns.

[David Hanson]

It should be a priority. Forty-three hereditary peers just elected another hereditary peer to a seat in Parliament with 43 votes. That is nonsense on sticks. It should be scrapped and the Government should bring forward proposals.

[Chloe Smith]

I am not sure there was a question there that I can answer. I say with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman that he assiduously raises this issue at oral questions time after time. I understand his arguments, but the Government’s position is as I put it.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no place for hereditary legislatures and that they should not be supported by a party that claims it wants to build a meritocratic Britain?

[Chloe Smith]

I respect my hon. Friend’s argument just as much as I respect that of the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), but the answer remains the same: there is an enormous amount of work in front of both Houses of Parliament at this time and this is not a priority.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 13th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I know hon. Members find these proceedings rather frustrating, but I do not. I have learned stuff today. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate makes an intriguing point about the Government running down the clock given the limited number of sitting Fridays. That had not occurred to me.

One of the problems the Minister faces is that she is running out of time, excuses and patches of long grass into which to kick the Bill. We kicked it into recess, but recess ended. We kicked it again when we were given the excuse that we had to wait for the drafting, which I will return to in a moment. The long grass of the conference recess will put matters off again, but time and room will continue to run out.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who talked about some of the procedures that might be used. He mentioned that he does not speak for the Government. The Minister does not speak for the Government in Committee, either—she hardly speaks at all. It was nice to hear from her last week. I am hoping, perhaps against hope, that she contributes today. We shall see.

The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that we should wait and see what the House’s response is to the proposals published this week, but my good friend the hon. Member for Glasgow East and my hon. Friends have already pointed out that the House has pretty much made its decision. How do we know? Because the Government are kicking the proposals into the long grass. They know they cannot win a vote—that is the sticking point.

I see from the Order Paper that this is not the only Public Bill Committee meeting today. The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill will meet just down the corridor this afternoon. I am pleased to see that on the Order Paper, but I cannot help but wonder whether the money resolution has been moved for that—I suspect it has.

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

Last night.

[Christian Matheson]

The Minister often points me in the right direction—not always, but sometimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

What a generous offer! There is a serious point. With the greatest respect—I moderate the tone of my language—the Minister’s excuse does not hold water and is not acceptable. The orders are simple—they simply reproduce what the boundary commissions gave us. They are not a reason to delay the vote in the House.

What is the reason? We know what it is: the Government do not have a majority. Some hon. Members in the extremist Brexiteer wing of the Conservative party are agitating about Brexit and looking to make trouble wherever they go, and others simply do not approve of reducing the size of the House while the size of the Executive—the Government—is not reduced, so the House cannot perform its scrutiny.

We have talked about party advantage this and party advantage that, but many hon. Members on both sides of the House are dedicated to the House, its service and its stature in being able to undertake its role of scrutinising the Government. They do not like the Government’s proposals, not because of self-interest, but because they damage the standing of the House. That needs to be put on the record as well as the suggestions of party advantage.

My offer stands. If the Minister picks up the phone and asks me to help her to draft the order, I will do so, but I suspect that the parliamentary draftsmen will do a better and quicker job, if they are given the nod. I wonder if the delay is not because the drafting is complicated, but because the Government are looking for yet another patch of long grass into which to kick it. Those patches are running out.

[Chloe Smith]

I am only sorry for the slightly imaginary world in which some Opposition Members seem increasingly to live. The factual position is as I set out last week, and I have nothing further to add this week.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

I suspect that the Government will be defeated on this. There is a majority in Parliament for 650 seats, and we will see that when a vote comes. In the event that the Government do a grubby deal and buy off some of their Members, I seek assurances that hon. Members, including the Minister, would not be heading off to the House of Lords after that.

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

I begin by adding my voice to those who have expressed their condolences to the hon. Member for Coventry North East. It must be a very difficult time for her and we all send our great sympathy.

I will put a few points on the record about the factual position of where we are this morning. As hon. Members will know, the boundary commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are submitting their final proposals for revised constituencies to Ministers today. The Ministers involved are the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Scotland—that covers the plural reports. Hon. Members may be aware that the House passed an order that transferred the function from the Leader of the House to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I confirm that that has taken place.

The boundary commissions have, of course, drawn up their proposals in accordance with the legislation passed in the 2010-15 Parliament, to which the Committee has previously referred. The law requires that the Government must lay the four boundary commission reports before Parliament. Each will be laid as an Act Paper and must be laid when both Houses are sitting. We expect therefore that the reports will be laid before Parliament on Monday 10 September. That accommodates both the Lords and the Commons sitting and, crucially, allows for the reports to be printed—these things do not happen instantaneously. That is the explanation for the laying date of Monday. I hope that is clear to the Committee.

After the reports have been laid before Parliament, the Government will bring forward a draft Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations contained in the reports. The order will, as a matter of fact, be a complex and lengthy statutory instrument. It will take months to prepare, because it needs to transcribe the entirety of those four boundary commission reports. Needless to say, we would all wish that work to be accurate.

We have said that we will keep the private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton under review. I understand that hon. Members in Committee have asked for the Government’s view of that Bill. As we have said before, we believe that it is right that the boundary commissions have been allowed to complete their work. Parliament agreed in the 2010-15 Parliament to that process for the review of boundaries, so that stands. I add today that it is my view that the House of Commons, sitting in the main Chamber, will play an important role in making the decisions that flow from the boundary review. It is appropriate that those decisions are considered in the main Chamber rather than in Committee. Recently, there has also been debate in the Chamber on whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed in Committee without a money resolution, and the House decided that that should not be permitted.

I hope that that is sufficient to give a clear indication of the process ahead and an explanation of which Ministers are involved, and also accommodates the question as to the Government’s intention with regard to the Bill.

[Christian Matheson]

The Minister said something very interesting then. Could she clarify? Forgive me, Ms Dorries, if my grasp of procedure is not as great as that of other Committee members. The Minister said the Order in Council would be complicated and take months to prepare. Does that mean that she expects a vote on the order not to take place for several months? My understanding was that, once the order is laid, there is a strict timetable for how long it would take before both Houses were expected to vote on it and that that timetable is short. Is my interpretation right? When can the Committee expect those votes to take place, based on what the Minister has just said?

[Chloe Smith]

I confirm that I used the word “months” and I deliberately did so. I intend to be realistic with the Committee that those instruments are complex and need to be prepared fully and correctly. I wish to be quite straight about that with the Committee.

The more specific scheduling of a vote after that point is, of course, a matter for the Whips, which I am not in a position to confirm any more specifically today. I add something I think the hon. Member for City of Chester and other Committee members might already be aware of: the governing legislation says that the orders shall be laid “as soon as may be”. That is the technical guidance the hon. Gentleman is looking for in his question.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that last point. I referred to that in a previous sitting. Ministers cannot unduly delay matters but they clearly have to go through the proper process and ensure that the orders are correct.

I want to ask the Minister a question about what she said on process. In a previous sitting, I brought up the subject of where these issues are debated. There are two points I want her to reflect on: one is what the hon. Member for City of Chester said about whether the House should give us permission to debate the Bill before the House has taken a decision on the boundary reports. I do not think that is sensible because the debate on the order would need to be taken into account if there was a wish to change legislation.

The second point, to which I think the Minister referred, is that these matters affect all Members of Parliament. If we were to debate the substance of the Bill, it should not be done here in Committee. As with the original legislation, it should be debated on the Floor of House in a Committee of the whole House, so that every Member of Parliament had the opportunity to consider it. The Minister has set out a sensible way to proceed.

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s compelling points. The first, on time, is absolutely correct. I agree that there is little point in this Committee discussing matters that are also before the main Chamber before the main Chamber does so. Secondly, on scope, I also agree, as I said earlier, that it is correct for the main Chamber to look at these matters, first, because they affect all Members and, secondly, because they are constitutionally important. It is the convention of this House that such matters are dealt with in the main Chamber.

[Christian Matheson]

The Minister is being generous with her time. In that case, will she undertake to speak to the Clerks to establish a procedure whereby this Bill Committee might be moved to a Committee of the whole House, with an attendant money resolution, so that we can move it forward at the time that she chooses?

[Chloe Smith]

No doubt, Ms Dorries, if I did not say it, you would say that it is not for me to do that. It would be for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to have such a conversation.

Following your guidance, Ms Dorries, I shall refrain from commenting on the internal machinations of parties, though, if I did, no doubt questions about the unity of both the Labour party and the Scottish National party would become very clear, given what we have seen in the press over the summer—in the Daily Mail or elsewhere.

Notwithstanding that, I can confirm that the party chairman of the Conservative party has written to Conservative colleagues, as is entirely reasonable and expected, but I do not think it is appropriate to lay that correspondence in the Library, as requested by the hon. Member for City of Chester, because those are party documents. The very important documents that we are discussing are of course the boundary commission reports. I hope I have used my comments to lay out the process that the Government intend to use for those documents, which will be before us very shortly.

[Mr Harper]

Before the Minister sits down, may I press her on one matter that I hope will be helpful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton? Picking up the point that the hon. Member for City of Chester made, it would be sensible for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to consider talking to the Government about a motion to discuss the substance of the Bill on the Floor of the House. That could save us coming here every week to talk about a motion to adjourn.

However, having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister, I anticipate the Government’s response to be—I am only a Back Bencher, so I do not know—that that makes sense, but that it does not make sense for that process to start before the House has had the opportunity to consider the Order in Council. As I have said before, if we are to debate the substance of the Bill, and therefore amend the current process laid down in law, we should want to do so after listening to Members’ concerns about the existing process. To start changing the law about the process before even allowing one process to conclude under the existing legislation is to put the cart before the horse.

To avoid our having an interesting but slightly null debate every week on whether to adjourn, it may be sensible for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to have that conversation. I anticipate that the Government would perhaps agree to that, but to have the process start once the House has had the opportunity to consider the boundary commissions’ proposals. That might be a constructive and sensible way forward. The Minister will no doubt reflect on my contributions and those of the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman may well also reflect on them with purpose.

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend is as forensic, logical and authoritative as ever, and I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Strengthening the Union

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered strengthening the Union.

The Prime Minister and the Government have said, time after time, that it is our responsibility and duty to govern for the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK Government are responsible for governing for the benefit of everyone in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but this reality is perhaps easy to forget. Devolution has changed the constitutional landscape of the United Kingdom, and with multiple Governments working across our four nations, it is perhaps easy to forget the value that this concept—this thing we call “the Union”—brings to us all, but the Prime Minister’s words show that this Union cannot and should not be taken for granted. It has always been of profound importance to all of us. It is central to our wellbeing, our security and our prosperity, as well as to who we are, whether we are from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland. It is a part of our identity as citizens of the United Kingdom, so I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss our Union of four nations.

I have the privilege of travelling regularly across the nations of the UK in my role as constitution Minister—I was also formerly a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office—and I see the strengths of our country. It is clear to me that delivering for all parts of the United Kingdom is—as it should be—at the heart of the Government’s approach. All parts of the UK need to work together to seize the opportunities of, for example, leaving the European Union. Being part of a bigger and stronger UK benefits all citizens in its four nations.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister can explain, then, why the former Foreign Secretary described Northern Ireland’s role in the Brexit process as

“the tail wagging the dog”

and sought to dismiss the serious concerns about the prospects of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or indeed, between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Perhaps she can explain why that was and dissociate the Government from those comments, now that the former Foreign Secretary has dissociated himself from the Government.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman did the job himself in the final few words of his intervention. I will look forward to some better ones as we go on.

Let me start with a few points on identity. The individual identities of each of the four nations remain strong. We could ask any of the millions of football fans who watched England’s endeavours in Russia about that. Each of us is proud of our distinct history and culture and our different traditions, but we also see this through amazing events such as the Royal Highland Show and the Royal Welsh Show—taking place later this week—which, of course, Cabinet Ministers attend and support.

Although our distinct identities are proudly held, perhaps particularly when we are watching sport, there is another set of values and ideas that unite us all, from Coleraine to Colchester and from Campbeltown to Caernarfon. The values of tolerance, democracy, equality and fairness are central to who we are as citizens of the United Kingdom. We may disagree over whether we prefer Scotch whishky—I mean whisky. It sounds as if I have already been on the whisky, Madam Deputy Speaker! Let me start that sentence again. I am going to attempt to get through a sentence that compares Scotch whisky to English ale, to Northern Irish scones, to Welsh cakes—I may well get to the end of that sentence with a cheer from the House. Whichever one of us has the better cakes or drink, or the more noble history, we are united in our deeper beliefs, democratic traditions and our long history of working as one to benefit us all. When we come together as one people, we benefit from the security and stability that comes from being one of the largest economies in the world, pooling risks and sharing benefits.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

The Minister talks about benefiting all, but as she is aware, the UK is the most unequal state in the European Union, with inner London by the far the richest part of the EU while the communities that I represent are among the poorest, yet in Government figures published in the last few weeks, public expenditure per head in London is higher than in Wales. Why is that fair?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point that we will have the opportunity to consider when we look at issues such as leaving the European Union and how we will address, for example, agriculture support across our nation. The point I was making is that we are a larger economy when we are together as a Union, and that means we can do things together in a more effective way for all our constituents.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I speak as a proud Unionist, and I am very much in favour of the Union. The Minister must understand, however, that there are considerable concerns about Brexit and the Government’s long-term plan for regional continued development, which benefits my constituency enormously—structural funding, for example, and agricultural funding. Those uncertainties are not helping to keep the Union together. On direct funding to Wales, she has to accept that cutting electrification to Swansea from Cardiff and not supporting the tidal lagoon does not give us enormous confidence about this Government investing in Wales and its communities.

[Chloe Smith]

I am sure that we will come on to all those points during the debate. However, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) were right to raise them, because it is in recognition of such issues that the Government plan to create a shared prosperity fund for the whole of the United Kingdom. We share those goals; we share those opportunities.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure that many Members from all over the United Kingdom will point to the inequalities and the lack of growth in some parts of our economy, but does not being part of the United Kingdom mean that fiscal transfers from parts of the UK that generate more revenue than others help Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and many English regions?

[Chloe Smith]

That is precisely my point. When we see what we can do as a larger economy—when we see how we can attract the finest and the best across the UK economy —we also see that we are in a position to put that back into public services, including the NHS and many other services that are admired around the world, and which work together to make everyone’s lives better. That is true throughout the Union.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I must make a few more moments of progress. We have a full debate ahead of us on the strengths of the Union.

Let me say something about the shared economy and the strong internal market, which is one of our biggest strengths, and which is important for all our prosperity. The UK internal market is, of course, the vital first market of the UK. As one of the largest economies in the world, we buy and sell among our nations, and that creates wealth and jobs for every part of the UK.

As we leave the EU, we must protect the benefits of the UK domestic market. We are a world leader in financial services, defence technology, car production, food and drink, digital technology, energy, music, films and television, and all parts of the UK have their role to play in those world-leading industries. Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK are worth four times more than those to the EU, and 56% of Northern Ireland’s external sales are to the rest of the UK. We as a Government are committed to strengthening these links between the economies of our nations. For example, between England and Wales we are abolishing the Severn bridge tolls and investing in cross-border railway links such as the Halton curve. Let us not forget how many people cross our internal borders every day as part of normal life. As the Prime Minister pointed out during her speech in Northern Ireland on Friday, our Union is rooted in both our history and our collective achievements, but it is our future together that is our greatest strength.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I will now.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the Minister—and may I compliment her on her rather fine Sean Connery impression earlier in her speech?

The Minister has just reeled off a list of service industries in this country, which, of course, are not covered by the Chequers agreement. What analysis has her Department conducted of how much the UK’s GDP will be reduced as a result of that agreement?

[Chloe Smith]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have been listening when I included, for example, car production and food and drink in my list, but the point is that the Chequers agreement seeks to secure the best deal for the whole UK economy, together. That covers both goods and services in different ways—in ways that will complement our strengths—but it also returns us to the key point about the whole UK economy, together.

Let me now say something about the industrial strategy. It is a vital part of the plan set out by the Prime Minister to drive growth across the whole UK, and to create more highly skilled, highly paid jobs and opportunities. It is intended to address the long-term structural challenges that can hold British businesses back, while building on the country’s strengths. New sector deals and investment and research and development will support the industries of the future where the UK has the potential to lead the world, from electric vehicles to biotech and quantum technologies.

It is important that we continue to look to the future. As was announced earlier this month, a £2.5 million grant has been awarded for a spaceport site in Sutherland, on the north coast of Scotland. That the first ever satellite launch from the UK could be from Scottish soil highlights our commitment to investing in all parts of the UK, and there are other launch sites too, such as those planned in Cornwall, Glasgow and Snowdonia, which will also be boosted by a new £2 million development fund. The UK is set to build on its world-leading expertise in aerospace with the development of these spaceports.

On the city and growth deals, we are supporting clusters of cultural and economic strength concentrated in places throughout the UK, and we want to see city and growth deals across the four nations to ensure that prosperity is shared across the UK. We have already seen important investments in a number of deals such as Cardiff, Glasgow and Swansea, as well as investment in other important cultural work such as the V&A in Dundee. Further deals are being developed. We have recently announced the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal, and negotiations have been opened on the north Wales growth deal and with the Belfast city region partners. These deals make a vital contribution to local economies and, as I have said, provide jobs and growth across the UK. There is more, of course. In Cardiff, we have invested in the development of a compound semiconductor industry cluster, and in Aberdeen we opened the oil and gas technology centre with an investment of £180 million, which will unlock the full potential of the North sea and anchor the supply chain in north-east Scotland.

Transport and connectivity are also crucial themes. As we support clusters of growth across the Union we must be connected geographically through our transport and infrastructure links. The expansion of Heathrow will help with this, creating hundreds of additional flights per week from London to the nations and regions across the UK, with new routes emerging to support our economic co-operation. As well as the importance of being connected geographically, the Government recognise that world-class digital connectivity is essential for the modern world; it is essential to people at work and at home and we are committed to improving that across the UK. We are investing over £1 billion to stimulate the market to build the next generation of infrastructure that the UK needs for the future through both the national productivity investment fund and the digital infrastructure investment fund.

Turning to international benefits, the strength in our unity of nations is demonstrated by our common voice on the international stage. We use our seat at the top international organisations to protect the interests of all parts of the UK, to influence issues that matter to people in the UK, and to make the world a better place. When we faced an attack on our citizens, we worked with countries around the world to respond. We use our influence to pursue issues that matter to people across the UK: leading the way on international aid, leading global action to tackle landmines, stopping the trade in ivory, and combating modern slavery. People across the UK can be proud of the role we can play because we are together in our international approach.

That international standing is also vital to the security of our country. Our UK defence expertise and excellence is joined up across the UK and has been built up across decades, from new radar stations in Shetland and Cornwall, to Scottish-built aircraft carriers based in Portsmouth, fast jet response aircraft in Lossiemouth and Lincolnshire, the SAS in Hereford, GCHQ in Cheltenham and the Royal Marines commandos in Arbroath. This is one very large UK defence network protecting us all at home and abroad. And we are spending across the country to be able to keep the whole UK safe. In the last financial year the Ministry of Defence spent £1.6 billion with Scottish industry and commerce, while a recent review found that defence invests £945 million in Welsh industry. The spectacular fly-past we saw only last month as part of the Royal Air Force’s 100th anniversary celebrations reminds us of the work of all our armed forces, who are drawn from, and based across, the whole of the United Kingdom. We saw the same at last month’s Armed Forces Day in Llandudno; it was a proud display of Wales’s military association, while the Edinburgh Tattoo demonstrates Scotland’s strong relationship with the military.

I am also proud that the UK Government recently announced that we will reimburse thousands of military personnel who would otherwise be negatively affected by the devolved Government’s income tax increases in Scotland. This protects nearly three quarters of all armed forces personnel liable for Scottish income tax and will help with recruitment and retention for our important armed forces.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the ninth anniversary of her election to this place? Perhaps that is why the whisky and the cake were getting muddled up in her mouth—maybe she has been celebrating early. On the point about the UK Government mitigating the “nat tax” in Scotland, does she agree that it was important for my constituents at RAF Lossiemouth and at Kinloss barracks that the UK Government did something to address the fact that the Scottish National party has made Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, which was having a negative impact on recruitment and retention for our armed forces in Scotland?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, that is exactly why the UK Government took those steps, and we are proud to have done so.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

A freedom of information request has just shown today that the Ministry of Defence is not paying 220 people the living wage in Scotland. Why?

[Chloe Smith]

I confess that I am not in possession of that information, and I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question right now. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), might be able to assist with that a little later in the debate.

I want to move on to the importance of devolution, which is a matter of interest to us all. Our powerful devolved Governments and Parliaments are important elements of our Union’s strength. The Union is best maintained by giving the different nations of the UK the ability to pursue their own domestic policies while protecting and preserving the benefits of being part of that bigger UK family of nations. The UK Government respect devolution as an exercise in better governance and as a way to bring the delivery of services closer to the people who need them, while making use of the benefits of scale across our four nations. Since 1998, the Government have transferred powers to ensure that they sit where they can most effectively be delivered, and the Scotland Act 2016 transferred a wide range of powers to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. The Wales Act 2017 has delivered clarity for Welsh devolution and accountability for the Welsh Government, meeting the commitments that we made in the St David’s day agreement. Devolution in real terms makes a difference to people’s lives across the UK.

Northern Ireland makes a major contribution to the Union, and also derives great benefits from it. The principle of sharing the economic and political strengths of the Union continues to serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and we are working each day to ensure that that remains so. The principles that define Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the United Kingdom are of course enshrined in the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements.

[Sammy Wilson]

Northern Ireland suffered from 40 years of terrorism at the hands of those who wished to overturn the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister accept that one of the benefits of the Union was that the people of Northern Ireland did not have to stand alone against that terrorist threat but were able to bring to bear all the powers of the security arrangements that were available in the United Kingdom in order to defeat terrorism? Was not that an important benefit of the Union?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I think that is right. The right hon. Gentleman also reminds us of the importance of the principle of consent that is there in the Belfast agreement—namely, that the UK Government govern for the benefit of all communities in Northern Ireland on the principle of consent.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sure the Minister recognises the contribution of the people in uniform in Northern Ireland. Conscription was never needed, because people volunteered, and Northern Ireland has the biggest levels of recruitment across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have the largest number of recruits to the Territorial Army reserves of anywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is a sure example of our contribution to the greater nation in uniform, whether in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force.

[Chloe Smith]

I join the hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House in paying tribute to those who serve this country in uniform. We should never forget them.

Let me return to my point about the Belfast agreement, which was reached 20 years ago and was a landmark moment in the history of our islands. The UK Government’s priority is to ensure that it remains as relevant today as it should be, and to restore the devolved institutions at Stormont. All efforts are being made in the hope that an accommodation can be reached and an Executive formed, so that Northern Ireland Ministers can take key decisions. Successive UK and Irish Governments, together with all the parties in Northern Ireland, worked tirelessly to bring about the historic achievement of peace. Let us continue that work.

As hon. Members will know, EU exit will result in a further significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

On the new powers that will come to the Scottish Government in particular, it has never been more important that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and all the devolved Administrations work very closely together. What we have seen over the past year, at least in my estimation, is that there are, at times, chasms that divide the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The machinery to bring those different Governments together seems to be inadequate. Does the Minister agree? Is that something to which the Government will attend?

[Chloe Smith]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have clearly had yet more of that whisky—I keep referring to you as “Mr Speaker.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend makes two important points. First, he says that we need to be able to come together as a single United Kingdom to make sure that our UK internal market continues to function and continues to bring the benefits that are needed across the internal borders of our country. He also looks ahead to my points about how we can relate to each other in the governmental work we need to do to get people those benefits, as new responsibilities transfer to Edinburgh, Cardiff and, once an Executive are formed, Belfast.

Our commitment to bringing powers closer to people can be seen in the major steps already taken to decentralise governance in the UK, creating new combined authorities in seven city regions, headed by elected Mayors, and devolving to them new powers and budgets. There are Mayors, of course, across England—in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, the Liverpool city region, Tees valley, the west of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and Sheffield city—and they demonstrate how local, visible and innovative leadership can be key to building stronger economies and fairer societies.

English votes for English laws, meanwhile, embeds fairness and balance in Parliament’s law-making process, strengthening England’s voice just as devolution has strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our Union. These measures are about accountability, effectiveness and empowering institutions to take action to make things better for the people to whom they are accountable.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Minister has very conveniently skipped over Brexit. Over the weekend we learned that a no deal Brexit is now likely. For Scotland that could mean conditions akin to a state of emergency, with “Protect and Survive”-type leaflets being given to families and businesses. How does that help to strengthen her Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

It is not my Union but the entire country’s Union. It is something we should be proud of; it is something we should cherish and protect; and it is something we should work together to protect. People in all our constituencies do best from the internal market of the United Kingdom, and it is that which we are seeking to protect and cherish as we leave the European Union and as we go out into the world to seek additional trade.

We are committed to ensuring that our system of devolution, which has progressed over the past few decades, serves to strengthen our Union and that a voice is afforded to each part of the United Kingdom. We have worked with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to strengthen the mechanisms for intergovernmental co-ordination and collaboration.

I chair a new ministerial forum, along with my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), with the purpose of providing opportunities for meaningful discussion of the UK’s negotiating position with the EU. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regularly meets the leaders of the devolved Administrations through the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. There can be no more important document on the current negotiating strategy than the White Paper that was published the week before last. Is it not the case that the Welsh Government had sight of that document only a matter of hours before the British Government gave it to the press?

[Chloe Smith]

I am not going to comment on individual documents here. The forum I chair, and the JMC structure more broadly, operate on a close working principle. We seek to improve it; we seek for it to be better in the future. We have held a number of very effective meetings in the last while—more than perhaps in the recent period just before that—because we recognise the challenge of these times and we want to have that close working and co-operation together.

The governance of the Union is also about learning from each other. Whether it is the UK Government or a devolved Administration that get policy right, we can all share our experiences, note our mistakes and learn our lessons together; as a Union, we can help each other to serve our people. This Government are fiercely proud of our Union. We will continue to defend it and to strengthen it. We believe that the UK has a bright future as an independent nation outside the EU. This Government will work to invest in all parts of the UK, for the benefit of everyone. By working together, we can help to tackle some of the world’s great injustices and ensure a safer world. As the Prime Minister said on Friday, we are:

“A union not just of nations, but of peoples bound by a common purpose, whoever we are and wherever we are from”.

This Government are working towards

“a brighter future for us all, where we put aside past divisions and work as one to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead”.

I look forward to this afternoon’s debate, which I believe will be an insightful discussion on a very important matter.

Electoral Integrity

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Written Statements

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

Today, the Cabinet Office published its evaluation and it shows that Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking delivered successful voter ID pilots. We know that because the evidence shows that the majority of voters who turned up to vote without ID returned later with ID without problem. When surveyed, polling station staff overwhelmingly judged that they had been able to successfully deliver the ID requirements in their polling stations, with 99% satisfaction rates among administrators in four of the five local authorities—Bromley, Swindon, Woking and Gosport—and 97% in the fifth, Watford.

Locally issued ID was made available free of charge whenever an elector was unsure they were able to produce the required ID. In one local authority, this was issued to 10 people who were homeless. They were also able to use the ID to register at the local jobcentre. The amount of voters who felt the security of elections improved increased consistently in the areas where electors had to show photographic ID. Confidence and satisfaction in the process of voting itself significantly increased post-election day where voters had to show photographic ID.

Overall, voters’ views of election day were largely positive across all of the pilots and the main reason for not voting was that people were too busy or had other commitments.

Alongside the Government’s evaluation, the Electoral Commission will publish their evaluation on the voter ID pilots today.

Peterborough, Slough and Tower Hamlets tested additional measures to improve the security and integrity of the postal vote process and ensured that additional guidance on preventing electoral fraud was given to every postal vote applicant. The local authorities found value in the pilot as an elector engagement exercise, given the positive feedback they received from electors in reaction to being contacted.

Electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. We owe it to voters to ensure they know their voices are being heard and their right to vote is being protected. We have worked with the Electoral Commission and Crimestoppers to support the “Your vote is yours alone” campaign that ran alongside the local elections to encourage the reporting of suspected electoral crime.

The improvement we will make to the security and integrity of our voting process in Great Britain will bring us in line with many other countries where voters provide confirmation of their identity and where there is a reasonable expectation that someone’s vote should be properly protected and that doing so guards democracy and confidence for everyone.

Indeed, within the United Kingdom, the experience of Northern Ireland, where paper ID has been required since 1985 and photo ID since 2003, illustrates that there should be no issue for voters—once the requirement has become established.

I am absolutely clear that requiring voter ID in polling stations is a timely and reasonable measure that will sustain confidence in our voting process and we are inviting expressions of interest from local authorities to run further pilots at the local government elections in May 2019.

We are committed to improving the security of everyone’s votes, strengthening our elections and ensuring that people have confidence in our democracy, while putting equality and inclusivity at the centre of our electoral system.

[HCWS888]

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 18th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

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

No.

[The Chair]

Then I call Chris Matheson.