Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the findings of the Electoral Commission’s investigation into the conduct of the Vote Leave campaign.

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

I am proud to say—[Interruption.] Is there something happening as I begin my words, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

No, there is just a general air of excitement.

[Chloe Smith]

Let us take that and work with it.

I am proud to say that the UK has a clear and robust electoral system, and we should all be proud of the democracy in which we live and work. I place on the record my thanks to all those involved in the electoral community, which works hard at every poll to deliver it within the law such that we can be proud of our democracy.

The Electoral Commission is the independent body that oversees the conduct of elections and referendums and regulates political finance. The commission regularly reports on the running of elections and referendums and conducts thorough investigations into allegations that rules have been breached. Electoral law exists to ensure fair campaigning, and the commission has determined that those rules have been broken. Both Vote Leave and BeLeave have been fined and referred to the police, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on ongoing police investigations.

That electoral rules have been breached is rightly a cause for concern, but that does not mean that the rules themselves were flawed. The Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission, along with many other stakeholders in the electoral system, to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of referendums and elections. Let me make it clear for the record that we will continue to implement the referendum’s result and to make a success of it.

[Chuka Umunna]

The findings of the Electoral Commission are shocking, and Vote Leave’s actions are an affront to our democracy and to the fundamental British value of fair play. The commission’s legal counsel described Vote Leave’s behaviour as follows:

“Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence.”

Who do these people think they are? They think they are above the law.

With new facts arising every week, it is well known that there will be no extra £350 million a week for the NHS, and so on. We know Vote Leave’s claims turned out to be a fantasy, but we now know it cheated, too, and it is official. Given that there was a four percentage point gap between leave and remain, and given that Vote Leave overspent by just under 8%, does the Minister agree that we cannot say with confidence that this foul play did not impact on the result?

Does the Minister believe that Vote Leave acted in contravention of natural justice and of our democracy in acting in such an obstructive way? What urgent legislation will the Government bring forward to address the Electoral Commission’s serious concerns about the enforcement regime for electoral law, which it has raised today?

And who was at the scene of these crimes? Vote Leave was co-led by the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who co-convened its campaign committee. Where is he? Why is he not here? That committee was charged with overseeing the implementation of a framework that included the way in which fundraising was conducted and donations collected. He, along with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), was part of a core group of the committee who met on a daily basis to ensure the campaign was on track. As such, either the Environment Secretary knew what was going on, which is a very serious matter, or, if he did not, how can we have any confidence that he is capable of overseeing his Department? What did he know? The International Trade Secretary, the Transport Secretary and the Brexit Secretary also sat on that committee. What did they know about what was going on?

In short, members of the Cabinet sat in an organisation that has been found to have flouted our democracy. Does all that not demonstrate that we need a full, urgent public inquiry into the leave campaign, given that it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire Brexit process that is preoccupying this House?

[Chloe Smith]

What this report demonstrates is that we have an electoral regulator that operates to rules that Parliament has set and that has found people in contravention of those rules. The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions that go severely away from the report and, just to be clear, the report—I am reading from the report’s front page—is

“of an investigation in respect of Vote Leave Limited, Mr Darren Grimes, BeLeave, Veterans for Britain”.

The report is not in respect of a number of others raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I will therefore not enter into those questions. [Interruption.] I simply will not enter into discussion of other named individuals, nor will I enter into discussion of ongoing investigations, whether by the police or by the courts. [Hon. Members: “Why not?”] Do we really need to begin by asking ourselves why the Government should not interfere in independent investigations and police examinations? I cannot believe that the Labour party needs the answer to that question so early in the afternoon.

As I said in my earlier remarks, we are getting on with delivering the result of the referendum. We have very clearly set out why we think that is the right thing to do, and it is fundamentally because we believe in the people’s ability to make a choice. That is why we respect the referendum result. Unfortunately, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the people’s ability to choose, and I think he argues instead that they should be asked again and again. I do not agree with his arguments but, none the less, I am here today to answer questions on this report by an independent regulator—I am happy to do so within my powers.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

On a more general point, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great glories of this sadly now diminished country was our electoral and democratic system? This example today is gross, and I say to her that if we are to retain the integrity and the trust of the voting public, the whole damn thing needs to be blown and started all over again.

[Chloe Smith]

I understand the seriousness of that point and the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna), which were similar, but what I would just note is that the rules we are looking at in this report are rules that comprise our democracy. Our democracy comprises having such rules, among some other very important principles. In essence, our democracy is underpinned by the fact that we have such rules. That the rules were broken means that the system is in fact working; that we have a regulator that is able to conduct an investigation is one of the things that marks out the quality of our democracy. That the rules were broken does not actually mean the rules in themselves were flawed. In concluding my answer to my right hon. Friend’s question, let me say that Parliament, over the course of many years, has put in place those rules for referendums and for elections. If I heard him correctly, he asked for a wholesale reform of all of those rules. That is a very large undertaking indeed and it goes wider than the report we have before us today. I note that other investigations are ongoing, such as the Information Commissioner’s, and that ought to be looked at in the round by Parliament.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) on securing this urgent question and on his introductory remarks. Today’s report from the Electoral Commission is a devastating indictment of the official leave campaign’s conduct during the referendum, which has been found to be based on cheating and possibly lawbreaking. Financial expenditure was deliberately co-ordinated through what now appears to be nothing more than front organisations, and Vote Leave failed to co-operate with the Electoral Commission inquiry. It showed contempt for the law set by this House, which makes a mockery of claims to “take back control” and displays the breathtaking arrogance of people who clearly believed that the law of the land did not apply to them.

We only got to hear about these activities because of the bravery of whistleblowers. What was the response of those involved? They outed one of the whistleblowers as gay, without his permission, and therefore put him and his family at risk. One of the people responsible for this outing was working as a senior adviser in Downing Street. The Prime Minister refused to sack him, so presumably she supports, or at least excuses, these monstrous actions. Will she now, on the back of this report, dismiss him as an adviser?

Of course, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, senior members of the Government were involved in the Vote Leave campaign. Those include the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the recently departed Foreign Secretary, who is uncharacteristically silent today. Will they now come to the House and explain their role in both the initial scandal and the cover-up? If the leaders of the Vote Leave campaign cannot be trusted to abide by the rules of the referendum, how can we trust them to abide by the rules of any future election? Indeed, how can we trust them to conduct their ministerial duties with honour, integrity and honesty? So can the Minister tell us whether those leaders of Vote Leave who are now Ministers or who are former Ministers will be referred to the Cabinet Secretary for investigation as to whether they have broken the ministerial code?

Yet again, we have been confronted this week by the chaos this Government have got themselves and the country into, dumping their own Euro civil war on the rest of us and sowing division throughout. We have Brexit extremists at war with their own Prime Minister, and a Government who at every stage have put party before country. Members in this House and the public are entitled to ask how on earth we got here, yet British politics and the British people deserve better than this. We cannot allow cheating and dishonesty to become accepted norms in our political system, so let me ask the Minister: what is her proposal to bring decent honest politics back to the fore? If this Government have not got any, perhaps it is time they moved aside for a Government who have.

[Chloe Smith]

Given that Labour Front Benchers are so committed to propriety, perhaps they should report themselves to the police for their national spending in the 2015 general election, for which the Labour party was fined by the Electoral Commission in October 2016. They are on thin ice if they think they are able to say that this cuts only one way. It does not.

We have in front of us a report of an investigation in respect of named individuals. I have already said that I am not going to comment on ongoing investigations, and that covers several of the points that the hon. Gentleman just raised. I will say again that the Electoral Commission is an independent organisation and can undertake any investigation that it feels is necessary. Indeed, as you know, Mr Speaker, it can report back to this House through your Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is its governance. The point is that we need to be able to say to the public who are watching this debate that we are getting on with delivering the result of the referendum in which they voted. [Interruption.] I can hear some Opposition Members shouting; perhaps it is that faction of the Labour party that believes in having a second referendum, or perhaps it is that faction of the Labour party that believes in not having one, or perhaps it is that faction of the Labour party that does not know what it believes in. What we believe in is that our independent—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that there is very considerable angst about this matter, and I do want to accommodate colleagues who wish to question the Minister, but her answers must be heard.

[Chloe Smith]

We have an independent electoral regulator and it has done its work. I applaud it for doing its work and I am pleased that we have a regulator that is able to carry out such investigations into our democracy. That is what our democracy comprises—that we have rules that can be investigated is what makes this a democracy. That is a good thing. As I said before, there are questions that arise from this investigation and from others that are still ongoing. Those ought to be looked at in the round in due course. Where appropriate, the Government will of course come back to the House to do that.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

This matters. May I respectfully say to the Minister that she should not let the Government’s commitment to delivering on the referendum result obfuscate the real questions that are being raised? This has not come out of the blue; there has been a series of accusations and suggestions, in not only this campaign but others. The protection of the valid confidence that the public need to have in our elections every time is absolutely vital.

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend is right. We should all be in agreement that we should be seeking to protect confidence in our democracy. That is precisely the point. The point is that the regulator has carried out this investigation and we should be able to look at its report and understand what it says. That is today’s job in hand. After that, there may come things to which we need to return as a House, including various aspects of regulation, which would of course be a matter for Parliament. I made the point earlier that the extent of regulation that we apply to our democracy is quite great. It has been put together by Parliament over many decades. As my right hon. Friend says, this does all matter—absolutely. That is why we should all be prepared to look at the report and the other ongoing investigations and look at such things in the round.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Government are presiding over crisis and chaos as they drag the country towards an exercise in collective self-harm on an unprecedented scale. They are doing that on the back of a campaign that was morally questionable, based as it was on mobilising fear and prejudice, and politically questionable, based as it was on glib half-truths and lies, and we now know that it was a campaign that was organised illegally. The Minister’s responses are woefully inadequate. We need to know whether the Government will draw a line between themselves and the people implicated in this illegality. If they do not do so, they will lose any respect and integrity that they have left. I would like an assurance from the Minister, now, that anyone who was involved in working for Vote Leave, or who was on its board, will cease to hold office in Government or cease to be on the Government payroll.

[Chloe Smith]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not going to make that commitment today, because a number of questions raised in the report are still subject to ongoing investigations. As I have already pointed out, that is in itself one of the important principles of our democracy and of how the regulation works independently of Government. The short answer is that no, I am not going to give such commitments here today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend put the synthetic outrage of remain campaigners into some kind of context by reminding the House that many of those same remain supporters in this House tried to change the Electoral Commission’s rules on referendums to enable the then Government to breach the purdah rules? Fortunately, that attempt by that Government was thwarted by this House. Many of those remainers would have liked to have a relaxed purdah arrangement.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend’s point reminds us that, as I said earlier, there are arguments on this issue that cut both ways. He highlights how he sees an example of an infraction in another direction. I simply return to the point that we in the Government are getting on with implementing the result of the referendum. We think that is the correct response to retain the people’s trust in our democracy. As has already been said, that matters.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not think there is any moral equivalence between Members in this House attempting to change the law and organisations outside this House breaking it. Today, we found out that Vote Leave did break electoral law. Our democracy is fragile, and we have a responsibility to protect it and not take it for granted. How can we look the next generation in the eye and tell them to have faith in British politics when we know that false claims have been made, that the rules have been broken, that there has been international and foreign interference, and that the legitimacy of the most important vote in a generation has been undermined so profoundly?

[Chloe Smith]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that because we have an investigation, we can look voters in the eye and say that where rules have been broken, punishments follow. That is what the report says.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The reality is that punishments are not following. We are talking about deliberate cheating and this money going to a firm that used highly sophisticated targeted Facebook advertising. In a quote since removed from the Aggregate IQ website, Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings said:

“We couldn’t have done it without them.”

That is Dominic Cummings, who will not appear before Select Committees, having claimed during the campaign that he wanted to restore the sovereignty of Parliament. He runs away from accountably himself. Consequences must follow. We cannot have confidence that the referendum was secure, and it should be rerun.

[Chloe Smith]

The report is clear that consequences do follow. The Electoral Commission has issued fines and referred both Vote Leave and the BeLeave founder to the police. That is what I refer to when I say that consequences and punishments are following.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I reported the leave campaign’s intentions to both the Electoral Commission and the police two-and-a-half years ago, and four months before the referendum itself. In February 2016, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who was then a leading figure in the leave campaign, wrote to colleagues saying:

“It is open to the Vote Leave family to create separate legal entities, each of which could spend £700,000: Vote Leave will be able to spend as much money as is necessary to win the referendum.”

The Electoral Commission’s rules are specifically designed to stop this kind of thing. It says that we should

“stop people getting around the spending limits by coordinating several campaigns at the same time.”

We have now established that spending limits were broken by the leave campaign precisely through separate legal entities following a common plan to get around the rules. Why is it that when such intent was reported four months before the referendum, it has taken two-and-a-half years to get to this conclusion? What does it say about the integrity of this result? Is it not ironic that the so-called people’s revolt against the elite was conspiring from the get-go to get around the rules with limitless money from goodness knows what source? Does the Minister not agree that this needs to be fully investigated to cleanse the cloud that has been cast over our democracy by these findings?

[Chloe Smith]

It is exactly the case that allegations of impropriety should be investigated. As I have said a number of times, it is that that means we have a robust democracy. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s story. In part, I think it ends with this investigation. An investigation has been carried out, and it should be welcomed that it has been carried out and that it has found a result. If, on the other hand, his points are about the efficacy of the Electoral Commission—I think he was driving at the fact that it took two and half years—then that is a matter for Parliament. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament through your Committee, Mr Speaker. It is indeed an independent regulator of Government, as it should be, and it is accountable to Parliament for how it conducts investigations and indeed whether it does so quickly enough.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, it will not have escaped your notice, and I know that it will not have escaped the Minister’s notice, that one of the most respected Members of this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), has, in condemning what has occurred in the leave campaign, gone so far as to call for a re-running of the referendum. These are serious matters. They go to the heart of government and, of course, to the heart of democracy and the trust that people must have in the democratic process. There are concerns not only about the overspend, but about the source of the money. The evidence is mounting. It is clearly there that another country—let us be honest, it is Russia—exercised its influence to undermine this country’s democracy and indeed this country’s security as it has a long history of doing. I say to the Minister that this is not a party political matter. It is nothing to do with delivering Brexit; it is about democracy. Can she give us an assurance that this Government will take these very important matters extremely seriously and act now on them?

[Chloe Smith]

I absolutely can give the assurance that the Government take these matters extremely seriously. That is the very point here. The very point here is that we have a precious democracy that demands our protection, and that is what we do by having an Electoral Commission, an independent regulator, that can make such investigations, publish them, expose the points of that investigation to scrutiny, and be held accountable in its turn by Parliament. Then it is for Parliament to consider whether, in the round, amendments might need to be made to the rules against which the regulator does that. That is the landscape that we are looking at here.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Vote Leave was a deeply dishonest campaign with deeply dishonest slogans and a cast of right-wingers who were prepared to go to any length to achieve their ideological endgame, and now we know that they cheated and broke the law. Can the Minister confirm whether the right hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and others involved will be jointly liable for the Vote Leave fine? Can she also confirm that of course this strengthens immeasurably the case for there to be a final say on the deal and a chance to exit from Brexit?

[Chloe Smith]

No, I am not in a position to comment on individuals. I have already said that very, very clearly. What I will say again for the benefit of the Liberal Democrat party is that we will be delivering the referendum result and we do not intend to hold a second referendum.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I regret the atmosphere in which this urgent question is taking place. I have just spent nine months sitting on the Independent Commission on Referendums under University College London’s Constitution Unit looking at what is wrong with the rules on referendums, and looking specifically at financing. A member of the Opposition party also sat on that commission. We have looked at the use of public funding, spending limits and transparency, and there is a common concern that our regulation does not fit the purpose that we would like in a modern democracy. May I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister that she reads this report cover to cover and takes on board our recommendations for new regulations and new legislation to try to improve this area, which, after all, is a very important part of our democracy these days?

[Chloe Smith]

I have begun to read that report and I welcome its thoughtfulness about how referendums fit into the rest of our election landscape. I look forward to more discussions with my right hon. Friend and her colleagues on it.

[Mr Speaker]

These are extremely serious matters. That said, we do need much shorter questions if we are to have a chance of accommodating some colleagues—[Interruption.]—and shorter answers as well. We will have to move on in a quarter of an hour or so.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

We have in our democracy clear rules so that we do not exercise, or see the exercise, of undue influence. For that reason, certainly in the last decade, we have had two elections declared void—in South Thanet and Oldham East and Saddleworth. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government can declare this referendum void on the basis of the evidence that we have been provided with by the Electoral Commission? If not, given that this was an advisory referendum by this Parliament, can she bring forward a vote in this Parliament to declare this referendum void?

[Chloe Smith]

No, the Government will not be bringing forward such a proposal.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Let the law take its course. By what factor did the Government and the other remain campaigns outspend the leave campaigns? It was 2:1, was it not?

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend reminds us that there are designated lead campaigners in referendums. The subject matter of this report is in part how leave campaigners interacted with other campaigners. The virtue of having this report is that it allows us to examine spending—it brings spending into the light. It is about transparency of spending, as is, of course, the rest of the apparatus of what we do to regulate elections. This is an examination of allegations rather than the whole dataset. Again, my right hon. Friend reminds us that there are people who feel that these arguments cut both ways.

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

A £60,000 fine is peanuts to these people. Found guilty, they could not care less and instead defiantly lash out. For these Brexiteers, and all the UK parties, our electoral laws are an optional extra and fines but a mere electoral expense. When will we get serious about our electoral laws, because no one and no political party takes them seriously? It is time to review the whole useless, ineffective system. When will the Minister do it? ‘

[Chloe Smith]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that his political party does not take these rules seriously; we do.

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

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the faux outrage that we are hearing today from Members from all parts of this House, some of whom have now left, is nothing to do with a breach of the rules by the leave campaign? It is to do with the fact that they lost; they are not representing the people. They lost that referendum despite the fact that they themselves overspent by millions of pounds.

[Chloe Smith]

I came here today to try to respond to the subject matter of the report, but also very clearly to lay on the record again that the people in this country want us to get on with delivering the result, rather than to go back over it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The Government propose legislation. The Electoral Commission has made specific recommendations to the Government about what they need to do. Will the Minister do it?

[Chloe Smith]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Electoral Commission’s earlier report on digital campaigning, which I am considering very carefully. As I said earlier, there are a number of issues to look at in the round. There are other ongoing reports and investigations such as that of the Information Commissioner, which last week produced a progress report, but not its final report. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government, it is important to look at those things together, and that is what the Government will do.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government, in the run-up to the EU membership referendum, spent over £9.25 million on a taxpayer-funded leaflet advocating that we remain members of the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

It is the case that such a leaflet was produced, and that was because the Government recognise the importance of the public being informed ahead of a referendum. Again, I think that the debate—even on that leaflet—has been had. The point is that we should now get on and implement the result.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I feel slightly sorry for the Minister, because she has been sent to defend the indefensible. Given her complacent demeanour today and her complete lack of acknowledgement about how serious this issue is, can she tell us quite how big a scandal would have to be before she actually reacted to it appropriately?

[Chloe Smith]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady has felt the need to get quite so personal. I am not complacent. If she had been listening carefully, she would have heard me say that these issues are very, very serious. I am also saying that the Government respect the work of an independent regulator and do not comment on its ongoing investigations, but will wish to look in the round at the results of all the ongoing investigations.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Have the Government received any representations from the Labour Front Bench to rerun the referendum?

[Chloe Smith]

Not at the last count. I believe that there were 60-odd individuals who did want to do so, but I am not sure whether they are on or off the Front Bench at this time.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government’s response to electoral fraud is shockingly, obscenely complacent. In trying to give some impression that she is taking this matter seriously, could the Minister agree to three really simple things? First, the fines should be unlimited, because £20,000 is pitiful; it is a tap on the wrist. Secondly, campaigns should declare their expenditure online in real time so that they cannot overspend in this way. Thirdly, does she agree that we need a digital bill of rights so that we can clear up the data harvesting that has been taking place on an industrial scale by organisations such as Facebook?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s policy suggestions as a contribution to this point. If she will forgive me, she underlines exactly what I have been saying—that we need to look at a number of these issues in the round. For example, her last point does not at all come from the report before us today; it comes from the Information Commissioner’s work.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

This is undoubtedly a very shoddy affair. In hindsight and on reflection, the referendum campaign—on either side of the argument—was not our finest hour in democratic activity. Would the Minister take the point about the reporting of expenditure in real time, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? Reporting after the event leads to the sort of situation that we have at the moment. If we do not address this matter of real-time reporting, the shysters and the snake-oil salesmen who seek to undermine our democracy will have won.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome that as a policy consideration that ought to be looked at in the round alongside the results of a number of ongoing investigations. I would just return to the core point, which is that we have these rules in place. It is these rules that buttress our democracy and that mean that we have an independent democracy where sanctions follow misdemeanours, and that is what the report tells us today.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Minister will not talk about the specifics of this case, will she address a very simple general question? Can she envisage any level of corruption so gross that it would ever invalidate any referendum?

[Chloe Smith]

I am really not in a position to answer the question. The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me with a yes or a no or a very simple question, but this is not a simple matter. There are a number of reports across a number of different investigations with a number of elements that are still ongoing. It is for that reason that I have come here and tried to be very clear, in a way I hope is understood by parliamentarians, that I cannot prejudge the investigations of independent bodies. [Interruption.] If you would bear with me for one second, Mr Speaker, I will offer a thought to the House. Those who have looked at election regulation over time—including many Members of this House who served here for some decades—have not seen fit to place in those election rules the idea that a result can be invalidated. I am simply stating the current law. That concept does not yet exist in our law. It would be a new concept, as it has not yet been seen fit to be put in place by Parliament.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Transparency is hugely important. I know that investigations are ongoing, but following this report does my hon. Friend agree that all investigations into our elections and the running of our democracy generally must be conducted in a way that is thorough, transparent and that people have faith in?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I do. That is exactly my view. Investigations should also be done by an independent organisation that is given the space and time to conclude its work.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I never thought that I would see the day when a Government Minister would come to this House and seek to downplay one of the most serious attacks on our democracy in history. This is not just about overspending, as important as that is. This is about dark money, foreign interference in our democracy and serious misuse of data. The Government must commit to a full, police-led investigation of all aspects of this matter. I suspect that I know why the Minister will not commit to that; there are at least four sitting members of her Cabinet who are not here today, but who served on the campaign committee for the organisation in question. That is even more reason why the Government must now stand up for our democracy and against its abuse.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady is quite seriously misrepresenting my words. What I have said today is that these are very serious matters. I have agreed with all right hon. and hon. Members around the House who say that this matters and that it is serious. That is precisely my point. The hon. Lady went on to say that this matter ought to be the subject of a police investigation. It is. Individuals from this investigation are also being investigated by the police. The hon. Lady also said that this is—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please resume your seat, Minister. I say two things. First, Members should not stand up while an answer is being given; that is not the right way in which to operate in the Chamber. Secondly, may I very politely say that the Minister could help herself by giving somewhat pithier answers? It would be most unfortunate if people thought that long answers were preventing other people from having the chance to ask a question. A short answer, not a disquisition, is required. Minister, we are grateful.

[Chloe Smith]

I shall leave that one there and wait for the next question.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister’s own words are that this cuts both ways, but I do not think that that is the case. The Electoral Commission has been absolutely clear. It did all it could, but it lacks power to do more. Will the Minister correct herself? This does not cut both ways, does it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, this is one of the worst, most despicable abuses of electoral law that we have seen in the lifetime of this House.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the powers of the Electoral Commission that has been put forward in its reports—for example, on digital campaigning. As I have said, the Government will be looking at those issues in the round.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

First, Scottish Tory dark money; now, the Electoral Commission showing that the leave campaign broke the law. We have these rules for a reason—to stop people buying our democracy—and yet the Minister appears complacent about that. So what confidence can our constituents have not only in the referendum result, but in the former and current Government Ministers who were involved in the running of Vote Leave?

[Chloe Smith]

I will say it again: the issues in the report are extremely serious. It is right that they have been investigated. The Government are not going to comment on individuals or organisations that are subject to ongoing investigations. We hope that those investigations will be speedily concluded. We believe that that is a way to give further confidence to our constituents in this referendum and in other elections.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

In the light of what the Electoral Commission has said today—and, indeed, the evidence that has been given to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve, that has clearly proved that this referendum was won by cheating—will the Minister do what the Government should be doing, call this referendum null and void, and protect British democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

No, we will not be re-running the referendum; we will be continuing to deliver its result. However, the hon. Lady reminds us that her Select Committee—an organ of this Parliament—is also conducting an ongoing investigation into fake news. There is another part of the larger set of issues that I am referring to that I want us to be able to look at together.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This House is the guardian of free and fair elections. It is now clear that this referendum result was corrupt because it was bought, quite possibly with Russian money. Which Minister will now ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider a joint enterprise prosecution so that it is not just the staff of these campaigns that are prosecuted but the governing minds as well?

[Chloe Smith]

The police have already received references from this investigation, and I think that stands for itself.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that the anger is because we are not discussing a parish council election or a local authority by-election, but a matter that goes to the heart of the most important political and constitutional arrangement that has happened in most of our political lifetimes? Does she recognise that the scale of the fines being imposed is derisory, not just in terms of the overspend but the size of the prize that the leave campaign cheated to obtain?

[Chloe Smith]

I entirely understand the points that Members have come to the House today to make. I am simply acknowledging that there are broader issues than only those in this report that need to be looked at together to continue to maintain confidence in our democracy. For the record, though, I think that any election, parish council or otherwise, is important and deserves its security.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Today, Darren Grimes of BeLeave has accused the Electoral Commission on Twitter of putting him through hell by seeking

“to justify this by saying that I failed a box ticking exercise”.

Can the Minister confirm that what has happened here is much, much more serious than that? The Electoral Commission has found that Vote Leave broke the law, that it cheated during this referendum, and that it had undermined our democracy. What are the Government now going to do about that?

[Chloe Smith]

Certainly, what is in this report today is very, very serious. Consequences follow for those organisations that are named in it.

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

The issue of the lack of transparency on social media political advertising is a problem for every democratic country. In the US, there are moves to prohibit anonymous advertising whereby social media platforms have to publish who pays for the adverts. Is this something that the British Government are considering?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, it is. In response to a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, we will shortly bring forward a consultation on ensuring that there are imprints on digital campaigning material just as much as there would be on paper. I think that is important.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister confirms that there is now an ongoing police investigation as a result of this report. Does she not therefore think it is right that all those who could potentially be part of that police investigation recuse themselves from Government until it is concluded? Surely law-makers should not be law-breakers.

[Chloe Smith]

It is not for me to confirm a police investigation—it is for the Electoral Commission. It is not for me to comment on what ought to be in a police investigation—it is for the independent regulator. I think that distinction is quite important.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Leaving the EU: Negotiations

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The way in which we exit the EU has already been subject to a great deal of debate in this place and of course outside it, but the Government’s resolve is absolutely clear. We are respecting the result of the referendum, and we are delivering Brexit. There will be no second referendum. As the Prime Minister said yesterday:

“This House and this Parliament gave the British people the vote. The British people made their choice and they want their Government to deliver on that choice.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 721.]

I fear that today’s motion reflects an ongoing pattern of trying to talk down the achievements that have been made, despite evidence to the contrary. We were told that we would not reach a deal on sufficient progress last December—we did. We were told that we would not reach a deal on an implementation period in March—we did. I remind the House that the negotiations so far have settled virtually all of the withdrawal agreement, and the implementation period we have agreed will provide businesses and citizens with time to prepare for our future relationship with the EU.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Government promised the fishermen in my constituency that we would be out of the common fisheries policy completely at the end of next March. As a consequence of changing their mind on that, there will be a period of 21 months during which we will be subject to the common fisheries policy without having anyone at the table. Is that one of the achievements of which the Minister is so inordinately proud?

[Chloe Smith]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman enormously and to some extent I regard him as a friend, but I also recall that from time to time he indulges in pantomime in his constituency, and that may be the case today if he is arguing that we ought to be out of a policy that he in fact believes we should be in. I do not think that his is the consistent position.

Domestically, we have passed legislation preparing us for Brexit, such as the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and, most recently, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill has also completed its passage through Parliament.

I am sure we will hear speeches claiming that a second referendum is the democratic thing to do, but that is not the case. The issue has been thoroughly democratically tested. Let me run through the ways. In the run-up to the 2015 general election, the Conservative party’s manifesto stated:

“We will...give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU, with an in-out referendum”.

It quite clearly did not say there would be one referendum at the start of negotiations and another at the end. That manifesto commitment was given statutory footing through the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which specified there would be one referendum, not two. To recap so far, there was an election-winning manifesto and an Act was passed through this House, but perhaps that is not democratic enough for the Lib Dems.

As this House well knows, the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people voting to leave the EU. That was the biggest single democratic act in British history. Following that, the House of Commons voted, with a clear majority, to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger article 50, by passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. As hon. Members know very well, amendments were tabled requesting a referendum to ratify the deal negotiated with the EU. One such amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), was defeated by a margin in excess of 10:1. That was democracy in action once again.

There is more in the democratic treasure trove. In last year’s general election, more than 80% of voters supported the Conservative and Labour parties. Both parties’ manifestos committed to respecting the result of the referendum. Let us not forget how many voters supported the position of the Liberal Democrats, whose manifesto called for that second referendum: 7.4% of them.

Most recently, of course, there has been the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where amendments attempting to secure a second referendum surfaced once again. One, in the name of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), was defeated by a margin in excess of 13:1, yet he still has an appetite for this old democracy idea.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the Minister does not appear to appreciate is that the referendum was a vote about departure, not destination—it could not be about destination because the leaders of the Brexit campaign never set out what the destination would look like. It is as if people who had been offered a wonderful mansion had ended up with a hovel with faulty wiring and a leaking roof. Does she not agree that they have the right to another say—the first say, in fact, on the actual detail? There has been no detail in anything that the Government have put forward so far.

[Chloe Smith]

I will tell you what I think the British people have the right to, Mr Deputy Speaker: trust in their politicians. As the Prime Minister said herself, this is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision that they took.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned trust, and that is very important. The simple fact is that all we have heard from the Liberal Democrats and the Green in the Chamber today is that they do not trust the people. Regardless of what they say, if we had a second referendum and they got the wrong result again, they would want a third, fourth or a fifth referendum—they would keep going until they got the result they wanted because they do not believe in democracy.

[Chloe Smith]

I respect my hon. Friend’s intervention. I fear that such an approach would not be one of principle, and he is right to highlight it. Rather than undermine the British people’s democratic decision to leave the EU, let us get on and make a success of it.

[Graham Stringer]

On this point at least, the Minister is making a great deal of sense. Does she agree that the Lib Dems are more interested in being good supporters of the EU than in being democrats? They are following the long tradition of the European Union, exemplified by referendums in Ireland. When the Irish people vote against various constitutional amendments, they keep having to vote until they get the right answer—the one that the EU wants. That is the policy that the Lib Dems are supporting now—“Keep voting until you agree with us.”

[Chloe Smith]

I agree. Such an approach would be deeply unprincipled. What Government Members and all those who believe in the referendum decision want is the right deal for Britain. That is what we seek to achieve and what the Prime Minister set out yesterday.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I want to understand something. The Minister says that the Government are going to deliver the will of the people on Brexit, yet the two leading proponents of Brexit have walked from the Cabinet because they do not support the Government’s position. How can the Minister argue that the Government are delivering what the people voted for in the referendum?

[Chloe Smith]

The Government is comprised of people in the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is delivering what the Prime Minister set out yesterday.

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

Not only did we have a referendum, but we had a general election in which more than 85% of the public voted for Brexit-supporting parties. Around 5% voted for the Liberal Democrats. What right do they have to tell us what the people are thinking? The people are certainly not agreeing with the Lib Dems.

[Chloe Smith]

What we should do is trust the people themselves. Is that not the fundamental point? Their decision in 2016 was not made quickly after just a few weeks; it was made in the context of years of debate on the subject. The idea that they were able to take that decision was what governed the ability to have a referendum. To suggest that some people were wrong or misinformed, or made a choice that has to be reversed, does people down, does trust in politics down, does our country down and does our democracy down terribly.

The referendum question was agreed by Parliament and presented to the people with no conditions or caveats, but with a promise from the Government that we would implement what they chose. We should be coming together and getting on with it.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I am grateful to the Minister for being generous in giving way. What is her estimate of when the Brexit deal will be done? What will be the date?

[Chloe Smith]

In case anybody in this place is still somehow, miraculously, unclear on the matter, we will be leaving European Union in March 2019—and so will the Liberal Democrats, whether they like it or not.

I turn to a few more points about Parliament. To try to undermine the result of the referendum by saying that it was somehow wrong does down Parliament, because it was Parliament that gave the decision to the people. We have always been committed to keeping Parliament fully involved in the process of leaving the EU and in determining the shape of the future relationship that we want to achieve. We have said consistently, and demonstrated through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which has just gained Royal Assent, that Parliament will have a vote on the final deal reached with the EU before it is concluded. That is now legally established. Members will have the choice to accept or reject the final agreement. That, and not a second referendum, should be the decisive vote. Let us give Parliament its rightful role.

I turn to the motion, which deserves a little attention. As the Liberal Democrat leader noted in his opening remarks, Liberal Democrat motions do not come along too often, although they are always a pleasure when they do. I am a little perplexed about why the motion calls for a second referendum in light of the record of the Liberal Democrats. We have probably all seen the classic Liberal Democrat leaflets that say one thing to one street and something else to another, but people cannot do that in Parliament. All seven of the Lib Dem MPs then in the House of Commons voted to give the European Union Referendum Bill, which specified one referendum, not two, its Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), the Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman, was among their number. Why does he think today that he should change position and say something else in this motion? Maybe that is explained by the behaviour of the Liberal Democrats when article 50 was triggered; let us follow slightly more recent history. I seem to recall that, at the time of that vote, the Liberal Democrats were, frankly, all over the shop—there is no other way to put it.

Let me in passing, however, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has just left his place. His constituency is near mine and he is a good man. He was the one Liberal Democrat Member who recognised publicly that his party’s position on Brexit was toxic. He feared that the party was not listening to people and was treating them with disdain. I pay tribute to him for his insight and courage in saying so.

[Steve Double]

Does the Minister share my view that we should not talk only about Liberal Democrat Members of this House? Liberal Democrat councillors, particularly in places that voted heavily for leave, such as Cornwall, are distancing themselves from their party leadership’s position on a second referendum because they believe that it is so toxic.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend speaks with experience from Cornwall, in the west country, for which I am delighted to say there is now Conservative representation in Parliament. I hope that he and his colleagues will continue to serve the people of that part of our beautiful country for many years to come.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but it does stink a bit of pot and kettle for her to claim that every party but hers is all over the place on this issue. If we are honest, there are divisions in all parties, just as there are in the country. Frankly, I do not agree with her argument that democracy is static. It is a dynamic thing, and there is no reason why people should not change their views as facts change.

May I ask the Minister about one particular fact? I am surprised that no one has taken her up on it. Can she please tell us what the resolution is to the Irish border issue? She wrongly stated that it had been resolved at the December Council. It was not. What is the solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland? The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is sitting next to her, shakes his head. Maybe he can get up and tell us what the resolution is to this issue.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend and I were shaking our heads because I did not say what the hon. Gentleman says I did. The Prime Minister’s statement yesterday made it very clear that the deal she proposes to put forward to the EU does address the Irish border question. That is where he will find the answer to his question. Today’s debate, however, is about having a second referendum, and that is what I am responding to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Before I give way to anyone else, I just want to take the opportunity, given that it has been rather handed to me on a plate, to remind the House that it is the Labour party that is all over the shop on the result of the EU referendum. Labour party politicians and supporters have suggested more than 60 times, I think, that the party is going to support a divisive second referendum. Whether that is or is not its party policy at this precise moment in time is anybody’s guess.

Let me move on to the final point I wanted to make about the Liberal Democrats before drawing my remarks to a close. I want to reflect on what I think is the right thing to say at this moment. It is this:

“The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’.”

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

I entirely agree with that, and I wonder if the hon. Lady might do too, because we all know who said it: the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). It is a great shame that he cannot stick to those words. Could the hon. Lady explain why?

[Christine Jardine]

Sorry, explain why—

[Chloe Smith]

Why her leader has flip-flopped.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just remind Members that we cannot have both people standing at the same time. Please give way to each other. Minister, are you giving way to Christine Jardine again?

[Chloe Smith]

indicated assent.

[Christine Jardine]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can explain to me why, if it is so important to stick to one’s principles, the Scottish Conservatives, all of whom represent constituencies that voted remain, have now flipped and are voting for Brexit and paying no attention whatever to what the people of Scotland are asking for.

[Chloe Smith]

It would be preferable if those of us who are Unionists, and who feel very strongly that our United Kingdom has made a decision together and should be able to look forward to a good result of that decision together, could unite around that argument. It is really important that we secure a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom. I am very pleased that the motion refers to the “people of the UK”. The hon. Lady and her colleagues are right to put that phrase in the motion, because we are committed to securing a deal that works for the people of the UK.

[Sir Edward Davey]

On the subject of the deal, one thing that confused us in the Prime Minister’s comments on the Chequers statement was this: if the EU puts forward a new rule and Parliament gets a chance to vote on it—the Prime Minister is very proud of that—what happens if this House votes against it? That has not been made clear. Will the Minister make that clear now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The Prime Minister took two hours of questions on the detail yesterday, and I really think there is very little I can add to the understanding of that. I am deeply sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not yet understand the position, but the Prime Minister did go through it in detail.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

If I interpret correctly what the Minister has just said, I rather fancy that she is making a false correlation between those of us who are perceived as Unionists and support for Brexit. I very luckily won my seat just over a year ago as a self-proclaimed remainer—there was a swing to the Liberal Democrats. I suggest to the Minister, with all due respect, that that was more about a repudiation of any notion of a second independence referendum in Scotland and perhaps a comment on the Scottish Government.

[Chloe Smith]

I am very happy to hear that argument from the hon. Gentleman. He is correct. I was making a parallel point rather than a correlative point about the need to seek a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom. What I would say is that those who respect the result of one referendum also need to respect the result of another. If the hon. Gentleman thinks highly of the independence referendum result, he might think again about the EU referendum result. If we respect one, it is important to respect the other for the same basic reason, which is that we are all democrats.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I do not know if other Members feel like this, but I feel like we have disappeared down the rabbit hole in “Alice in Wonderland” with the Liberal Democrats’ motion. They are calling for a second referendum, but the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) described those who voted leave in the first referendum as old people driven by nostalgia for a world of white faces. If he has so little regard for the majority of people who voted in referendum one, why on earth would we listen to him about having a second?

[Chloe Smith]

Those words were hugely to be regretted. They were a great shame. Perhaps we will be able to draw that point out a little more from Liberal Democrat Members in today’s debate.

Returning to the motion, it is a shame that its language is overblown to say the least. Apparently what we need at the moment is a Government of national unity. The last time we had one of those, if my memory serves me rightly, we were at war. We are, instead, in a constructive negotiation with the European Union. We are not at war with it, nor should we try to be.

[Bob Stewart]

As someone who commanded a checkpoint on the Northern Ireland border for two years during the hard border times, I point out that it is perfectly easy to have a border that does not require checkpoints. The Swiss border operates using pre-registration and technology, when one goes into Germany or France. Having done it, I can tell the House that that is perfectly possible using today’s technology and pre-registration. It can work.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking from his experience. I will draw my remarks to a close, because many other Members wish to contribute to the debate—at least nine Liberal Democrats and perhaps one or two others.

The Government’s position is clear: we are determined to deliver on the decision of the British people. We are making progress on doing so, and there will not be a second referendum. Surely our focus should all be on making a success of Brexit and getting the best deal possible. It is the Government’s duty to do that. It is the Government’s duty to deliver the will of the people, as asked for in the referendum, and find the right deal for Britain.

Equal Franchise Act 1928

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Westminster Hall

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

May I say how pleased I am to have you presiding over us today, Ms Buck? I will make a few remarks before ensuring that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) can wrap up the debate. I begin by thanking her for bringing forward this debate on the 90th anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act 1928. I am delighted to play my part in recognising that milestone. I will set out some of the work that the Government are undertaking to mark the anniversary and our plans for ensuring that all citizens feel empowered to be part of democracy as we enjoy it in this country.

[Jo Stevens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Lady should give me a chance to get started, but go on—make it good.

[Jo Stevens]

The Minister specifically mentioned allowing people to participate in democracy. Would it not be a wonderful thing on this anniversary to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady will need to wait for another 90 minutes in another Westminster Hall debate for the full discussion on that.

I thank the hon. Member for Canterbury for her commitment to equality for all members of our society. I am aware of the work she does with the 50:50 Parliament campaign, and I pay tribute to it. I am glad she shares my view and the Government’s view that no one in our society is more important than anyone else. Every individual, no matter their gender or background, has an equal role and, in relation to my particular brief, an equal right to vote.

As a fellow female parliamentarian, it is important to acknowledge the efforts of the brilliant women who paved the way for us to be here today. I thank the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for beginning the Back-Bench contributions with an exposition of the history that is at play here. It is important to think about the past as we consider our present and our future. Without the tireless efforts of those women and the men who championed their cause, perhaps most of us in this room would not have a voice in society, let alone in this place. I am proud to be part of the present, when we have the most diverse Parliament in British history, but there is a lot more to do.

We all welcome such initiatives as the 50:50 campaign, the #AskHerToStand campaign and Parliament’s own Vote 100 project, which make the goal of gender balance a long-needed reality. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for reminding us that progress needs to be encouraged and supported internationally.

This week is National Democracy Week, which has been timed to coincide with Monday’s important anniversary. Many of the events happening up and down the country will be highlighting the role played by those who fought for equal voting rights, which included women from a diverse range of backgrounds. Our goal in running National Democracy Week has been to reach out to citizens from all backgrounds, especially those from groups less likely to be registered to vote. I am very passionate about that.

I understand, respect and acknowledge the arguments that have been made today about the difference between 1918 and 1928. In this year of suffrage, which encompasses both those anniversaries, it is valid and important that we test those concepts and have that debate. I would like to acknowledge that in my remarks.

The Equal Franchise Act 1928, which is what we are here to discuss, is as significant today as it was then. It cemented in law that no matter whether someone was a woman or a man, they had the right to vote on equal terms. We are celebrating that 90th anniversary in a number of ways, including the National Democracy Week awards, which were held in Manchester on Monday. They kicked off the week and were a fantastic way of recognising the exceptional work of individuals and organisations helping others to be involved in democracy. Just today, a “Women in Politics Hackathon”, supported by the Leader of the House and run by Shout Out UK, brought girls and young women to Parliament to work on creative ideas to get more women into politics.

This year the Government Equalities Office has provided £1.5 million for the women’s vote centenary grant scheme, which has already provided funds to 140 projects across the country. As a Minister at the Cabinet Office, I am delivering projects under the “Educate” theme of the suffrage centenary programme. The projects are being developed to increase knowledge of UK democracy and its importance among young people in particular, but not exclusively. It includes those from ethnic minorities and under-registered groups, so as to widen democratic participation.

Increasing participation has been facilitated by the Government’s commitment to making registering to vote more straightforward than ever before. In 2014 we introduced individual electoral registration alongside a digital service, and as a result we have seen record numbers on our electoral register, which reached 46.8 million people before the 2017 general election. I wonder what that might have looked like to someone looking ahead from 1928.

We are committed to making the service more accessible. For example, I am pleased to say that we are working with Mencap on an easy-read guide. Historically—I say this as a passing point of interest—figures suggest that women have been more likely to be registered to vote than men, with recent research on completeness of registers suggesting a 2% difference in the rates for women and men.

Last December, the Government published their democratic engagement plan, which sets out the ways in which we will tackle further barriers to democratic inclusion. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Canterbury widened her argument at the start and set the tone for the debate, because in many ways the issue goes beyond just gender. That gives me the chance to note that we have set up an accessibility of elections working group along with Mencap, Scope, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and many others, through which we are working on how we can make our registration and electoral systems and processes as smooth and secure as possible for people with specific conditions or disabilities.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in his place, was right to reassure people that our recent changes to the anonymous registration system have made it easier for victims of domestic abuse to register to vote while protecting their right to remain anonymous. Those changes, which of course were welcomed by Women’s Aid and many others, will make it easier for an estimated 12,000 survivors of domestic abuse to register to vote without their name or address appearing on the roll and without the fear of former partners finding their address. I would like the message to go out loud and clear that that has been done, and I hope it is already making victims’ lives easier.

I was struck by some of the words the hon. Member for Canterbury used about the grotesque abuse that may follow her introducing the debate. She was right to draw that point out. I will shortly launch a consultation on intimidation in public life, which, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life noted, is directed disproportionately at female candidates for public service. I hope we can work together to improve the way our electoral law protects debate and welcomes everyone into democracy.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) reminded us in his helpful remarks outlining the life and times of Nancy Astor that we should respect difference. I am delighted that hon. Members spoke so well about their political traditions, and I shall take the licence the hon. Gentleman offered me to speak about mine. I remind hon. Members that the first woman to sit in the House of Commons was indeed that Conservative, Nancy Astor, and we were the first party in the western world to elect a female Prime Minister. Here we are on our second, while the party in opposition is yet to have a female leader.

[Dawn Butler]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

Is the hon. Lady the next leader of the Labour party? I hope so.

[Dawn Butler]

I am not, but let me correct the Minister. We have not had a female Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) was a female leader of the Labour party.

[Chloe Smith]

I am happy to stand corrected, but I still raise the hon. Lady two Prime Ministers to one Leader of the Opposition. I also raise her the Prime Minister who passed the Equal Franchise Act 1928—the Conservative Stanley Baldwin—and pay credit to Emmeline Pankhurst, who, had she not passed away before the election, would have contested a parliamentary seat for the Conservative party.

Turning to other matters in women’s lives, under this Conservative Government there are more women in work than ever before. The female employment rate is at a record high of 70.9%. Under the last Labour Government, female unemployment rose by 25%. Let us not forget that that represents nearly 1 million women. We are encouraging all companies to do more to eliminate the gender pay gap by publishing their data, improving their pipeline to ensure progress on female representation at senior levels, and making flexible working a reality for all employees. We introduced shared parental leave—my husband and I took it ourselves, and we agree that it is extremely important. I would love to see others taking it up as well.

Other political points were made that neglected to give the entire picture, so let me make a few more economic points before concluding. In Government, we have introduced tax-free childcare, providing working families with up to £2,000 per child per year. We have introduced universal credit, and increased support to 85% of childcare costs, 15 hours of free childcare a week for families with disadvantaged two-year-olds, and an additional 15 hours of free childcare every week to working parents of three and four-year-olds. We will be investing around £6 billion in childcare every year by 2020—more than ever before. That is the Conservative reality.

Furthermore, the increase in the national living wage in April from £7.50 to £7.83, with more to come, represents an increase in a full-time minimum wage worker’s annual earnings of more than £600. We all know that a higher proportion of women than men are expected to benefit from that increase, so there is no glass ceiling in the Government’s approach to improving the lives of all women in society. We practise what we preach—improving female representation and creating equal opportunities in the workplace.

I will leave time for the hon. Member for Canterbury to wind up. I thank her again for securing the debate on this important anniversary. We should use such opportunities to promote participation and work together, combining our traditions and interests and coming together to use our powerful positions in this place to deliver a democracy that is more accessible, inclusive and representative.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all the Members who have spoken today. I am, obviously, particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and, through him, I thank his Committee for its examination of this issue over time. Obviously, the Government welcome the opportunity to respond formally to its most recent report on this subject. That report stands. I trust that Members have had a chance to read it in detail today. I have also been able to listen to the points that have been made during the debate. Let me now set out how the Government see ACoBA, and, in doing so, try to address some of those points.

ACoBA fulfils a specific remit: to supply independent, impartial advice on the business appointment rules to former Ministers and civil servants on proposed new appointments of people who have left Government service. It supplies its advice directly to former Ministers and, in the case of civil servants, to either the Prime Minister or the relevant permanent secretary. It remains the Government’s view that it fulfils its remit effectively, efficiently and with professionalism. It comprises nine very knowledgeable individuals, independent of Government, who bring with them a wealth of experience from the public, private and third sectors.

The business appointment rules system itself is a set of principles which seeks to ensure that, when a former Minister or civil servant takes up an outside appointment, there is no justified public concern about that appointment. We do think, though, that people have a right to earn a living after leaving Government, perhaps in areas in which they have established expertise. When applying the rules, the system should strike a balance, ensuring that there is public confidence, but also ensuring that the conditions do not amount to an unlawful or unenforceable restraint of trade.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is fair enough that, when people leave the House, or leave Government jobs, they should be able to earn a living, but not necessarily in the area in which they previously worked, from which they could benefit through their inside knowledge, or in which they might even have influenced policy in the expectation of a subsequent reward. That is what is wrong. If someone who was in the MOD then gets a job as a schoolteacher, that is not a problem; if they get a job ordering supplies for the military, that is a different matter.

[Chloe Smith]

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement, because that is the guiding principle of this structure. There should be able to be public confidence that abuses are not occurring. There was a clue, I think, in his choice of words. He may have involuntarily used the words “not necessarily”, but there is something rather important in that. We have a flexible system that means that there is the ability to make a decision not necessarily in one fashion or another. That is one of the advantages of having a non-statutory body —it can be a little more flexible, in a way that is different from something that is encased in legislation, where the words “necessarily this” or “necessarily that” may apply.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I hope that the hon. Lady is not reading too much into my words. In my short speech, I said that I wanted strong rules, rigidly enforced. That is the way it should be. There should be an entire separation between what a Minister does in government and what they do after they leave Parliament.

[Chloe Smith]

I hear and respect the hon. Gentleman’s view and I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to repeat it.

One of the other principles at stake is that we do not want to deter talented people from entering government service. I suspect that the Committee also recognised that principle, quite rightly. In the Government’s view, that could result from having an over-rigid system that could prevent or restrict people from returning to the sectors in which their expertise lies appropriately following a period of public service. Now, more than ever, with some major challenges in view for the public sector and for the civil service, we need to be able to attract the best skills and talent and to benefit from those who have capabilities and experience from outside the civil service—let us not forget this argument works two ways.

In order to deliver for the public and for taxpayers in the way in which they expect of their civil service, we need to be able to maintain a confident, professional and expert service when we are looking at such important and critical matters in the public sector.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend knows that the PASC report of 2012 recommended a statutory scheme. In this later report, having listened to the Government’s objections about the cost-effectiveness of a statutory scheme, we invited the Government to produce a cost-benefit analysis, which indeed even the chair of ACoBA said would be a good idea. However, the Government have declined to produce even a cost-benefit analysis of having statutory rules, or enforceable rules of some kind. Will she revisit that recommendation and look at the question of a cost-benefit analysis? We are constantly told that rules would have a very negative effect on the public sector, but there is no evidence to support what she is claiming—although I understand that there is a perfectly legitimate concern.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the Chairman of the Committee for that intervention. He gives me the opportunity to note that these arguments have been put back and forth a number of times over the years. It is my great pleasure to come to the House today and take up those arguments. However, it is still the Government’s case that a statutory system is not the right way forward. That is a matter of principle as much as of practicality, for the reasons I have set out. We do not therefore think it is right to go ahead and do a cost-benefit analysis, which, in itself, would take time and money, for something that, in principle, we are not convinced of the case for. It is question of principle and practicality.

We need to be able to attract capable people from a range of backgrounds, and I reiterate the commitment to being able to recruit fully externally to do that. It is therefore important to have an interchange of skills and experience between the public sector and elsewhere. That is good for our national life. It is also a matter of fairness to individuals who will wish to continue their careers in various ways. We need to strike that balance.

As I said, we remain of the view that a statutory system with enforcement powers but without the flexibility of the current arrangements to take account of the particular circumstances of individual cases would not be beneficial. As I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, we do not consider carrying out that cost-benefit analysis on the introduction of such a system to be a good use of public money at this time.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is being very patient, but unfortunately for her she has a lot of time. If she is going to refuse a cost-benefit analysis, will she at least accept this? ACoBA seems to be very preoccupied by what candidates might do after they have left the public sector in the context of their employers, and it often puts a lobbying ban on the person moving into the private sector. What regard should ACoBA have for the fact that the lobbying has already probably taken place and the granting of employment is just the implicit reward for having been lobbied when the candidate was working in the public sector? No regard seems to be paid to that potential conflict of interest in the way the ACoBA rules are applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is, I suppose, at the other end of the process. Although it is ACoBA’s remit to look at the exit end of the process, the entry end is also bound around with codes of conduct—the ministerial code and the codes of conduct expected of civil servants. Crucial to those are of course the principles of public life. While we are on the subject of principles that govern what we are talking about here, I should say that we expect a high degree of principles and of ethical behaviour from anybody who comes in to work for the public sector—that is the least that both their employer and the taxpayer expect. However, I wonder whether it would ever be feasible to systematise that and have someone checking every dot on the i and cross on the t of how that could be done. That is a slightly different part of the process from the one we would be looking to ACoBA to deal with.

I did want to talk about transparency, because it is one way in which we can also look to gain accountability in the area of appointments after public service. ACoBA publishes a considerable amount of information on the applications it receives, and Departments do the same where it is their responsibility to do so. That advice is published online, in full, once an appointment is taken up, and Departments publish summary information regarding civil servants’ applications on a quarterly basis. What those methods do is very important. They provide a reputational check and balance. Hypothetically speaking, if I were a future employer of somebody and I felt they had not been honest about something which I could very easily scrutinise, I might think twice about employing them. We have a clear and open system, and it has a very human point at its heart. The Government believe that is helpful and sufficient to ensure that the public have the information they need for transparency and accountability purposes.

We have noted in our responses to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s previous reports on this issue that there are certain areas where the current system may be tightened, and I would like to go into those now in order to outline to Committee members and others who are here this afternoon the changes we have made. First, the ministerial code is clear that Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety. The code contains an explicit prohibition on former Ministers from lobbying Government for two years following their departure from office, and they must also seek advice from ACoBA about any outside appointments and abide by that advice. To reinforce that requirement, the most recent version of the code appends a full version of the rules and includes new wording to make it clear that new appointments should not be taken up or announced until ACoBA has had the opportunity to provide its advice. Hon. Members will find that important in the context of examples they have given this afternoon.

In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has recently written to ministerial colleagues reminding them of the importance of the business appointment rules in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our public servants. We have also taken steps to improve awareness of our compliance with the rules at departmental level and to improve Departments’ monitoring of compliance issues. These actions are largely in response to recommendations made by my hon. Friend’s Select Committee in its latest report on this issue, and I thank him and the Committee for their continued interest. I particularly wanted to be able to set out today how we have made those changes and the way in which they take the issue forward.

The Cabinet Office has also recently issued updated guidance to Departments on administering the rules on working with ACoBA. This guidance includes a number of new points, including increasing clarity on how the rules apply to civil servants on career breaks, ensuring that all applications from former permanent secretaries are countersigned by the Cabinet Secretary and encouraging Departments to consider an individual’s compliance with the business appointment rules in the future, should they wish to return to Government service. [Interruption.] Dangerously, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am now going to pause for a glass of water. I await a heavyweight intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. However, none is forthcoming. [Interruption.] I shall now complete my remarks, so that the House can move on to the important matters that await it in the next debate.

In addition, if a former Minister or senior civil servant is nominated for an honour, ACoBA will be consulted on an individual’s compliance with the business appointment rules as part of the honours and appointments secretariat’s existing vetting process. Finally, the chief executive of the civil service and the Government lead non-executive have written to the chairs of each of the departmental audit and risk committees, requiring them to monitor on a quarterly basis a Department’s performance on ensuring compliance with the business appointment rules. In our view, the amendments that I have listed for the House today, which will also be incorporated into the civil service management code in due course, will help to tighten and strengthen the processes that underpin the subject of today’s debate. They will also raise awareness and improve compliance with the rules.

In summary—[Interruption.] All I need is for some scenery to begin to collapse behind me; then I would have had the perfect afternoon in the Chamber. In summary, in the Government’s view, ACoBA’s primary role is, and should remain, to provide independent advice on the application of the business appointment rules on outside appointments to Ministers and the most senior Crown servants after they leave office. The Government’s view remains that the current rules strike the right balance between preventing conflicts of interest and recognising the necessary freedom of individuals to earn a living without unreasonable hindrance after they leave public service.

Piloting Alternative Electoral Canvassing Models: Evaluation Report

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to publish the Government’s evaluation of the pilots conducted in 2017 in England, Scotland and Wales testing alternative approaches to the current annual canvass for the electoral register. These pilots were conducted under section 9 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. The Electoral Commission has today published its own evaluation of the pilot findings.

The Government brought forward legislation to conduct these pilots to test alternative approaches to the canvass as the current process is expensive, administratively complex to run and confusing for citizens to navigate. The alternative approaches were initially proposed by the electoral community, with four models being refined and taken forward for piloting. These models were a household notification letter (HNL) model, a telephone canvassing model, an email model and a model that introduced a data discernment step at the start of the process. We tested these four models over 24 different local authorities in 2017, following a smaller sample of piloting the previous year. I would like to thank all the local authorities and their staff who participated.

The pilots and evaluation show that there are viable ways of improving the canvass to achieve a reduction in cost and administrative burden without compromising the volume and quality of data that is currently collected through this process. In particular, the pilots have shown that we can use data to help better target resources to those properties with a change in household composition. The pilots have also shown the ability to deploy more modern communication methods to engage citizens in the annual canvass. It is time the canvass process is brought into the 21st century. Doing so will build on other reforms to modernise electoral registration, such as the introduction of online registration, which have helped ensure the electoral register used for the 2017 general election was the largest ever.

The Government now intend to consult in the coming months on reforms to the annual canvass based on the pilot findings. We believe a hybrid model, incorporating the most successful elements of each of the models piloted, will be the most beneficial in achieving the aims of reform. We intend to publish a policy statement later this year setting out the plans and asking for feedback from all interested parties.

The pilots show the benefits of engaging closely with stakeholders, who are best placed to shape a system that works for everyone. We are indebted to the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Scottish Assessors Association for their collaboration to date and look forward to this continuing throughout the development and implementation of these reforms.

Our intention is for reforms to be introduced across Great Britain. As elements of electoral registration are devolved in Scotland and Wales, reforms will need to be introduced jointly. We are therefore working closely with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. The publication of the evidence from the pilots is an important milestone that will help underpin this collaboration.

I am placing a copy of the evaluation report in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS805]

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

We are encouraged by the data from the returning officers and the statements they have made indicating that the pilots were a successful test of the implementation of voter ID. The Electoral Commission will publish its evaluation in July and the Cabinet Office will conclude its own evaluation at the same time.

[Adam Holloway]

Does the Minister agree that additional measures should be brought in, given that the issue affects the vulnerable, the elderly and, in my constituency, ethnic minorities?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment, which I share, to helping voters to be able to cast their ballots in a way that also protects the integrity of the wider system. Let us never forget that that is not only an individual advantage, but in the collective interest.

[James Morris]

Following the recent trials in this year’s local elections, the Minister will be aware that local authorities such as Woking recorded a 99.7% success rate on voters bringing the correct ID. Does she agree that that demonstrates that we should consider rolling this out further to secure the integrity of the ballot?

[Chloe Smith]

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely the case. The measures that we piloted at the local elections just past were reasonable and proportionate and have been shown to have worked. Furthermore, other countries already do this without problem. The overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their votes in these pilots without any issue. I look forward to considering the best next steps, informed by those pilots.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What problems were there with the pilots?

[Chloe Smith]

I am sure that the Electoral Commission will provide those who look for problems with a little bit of data to chew on, but the point is this: it seems to me that the Labour party is looking for problems. Actually, most voters regard this as a reasonable and sensible step that protects our democracy.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

We agree about the importance of preventing voter fraud and other electoral malpractice. The Electoral Commission ruled that Leave.EU breached spending limits and other rules, fined the organisation and reported its responsible person to the police. What steps are the Government taking to address that and how will the Minister ensure that the issue of cheating in the Brexit referendum is pursued?

[Chloe Smith]

As you will know, Mr Speaker, given your role in connection with it, the Electoral Commission is an independent body. I am not able to respond at this point to questions about investigations that it is undertaking.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to encourage the use of small businesses in Government procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

4. When the Government plan to respond to the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the size of the House of Lords.

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

The Prime Minister responded to the Lord Speaker’s Committee on 20 February. In her response, she committed to do her bit to address the size of the House of Lords by continuing the restrained approach she has so far shown to appointments.

[Martyn Day]

Thanks to the Minister’s actions during the debate here on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, the couple of minutes that Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town had on devolution was more time than all the devolved MPs got collectively. Does the Minister think it acceptable that unelected Members of the House of Lords had more opportunity to debate the Government’s redrawing of the devolution settlement than any elected Member from Scotland?

[Chloe Smith]

As you will know, Mr Speaker, because you spent many hours in the Chair, we spent several hundred hours debating the Bill. I am proud that it has attained Royal Assent. I think we can all agree that that will provide greater certainty to businesses and citizens as we exit the EU. It is a shame that the Scottish National party seems not to be interested in that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that the House of Lords would be vastly improved if it was smaller and democratic?

[Chloe Smith]

I echo what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the role we see for the House of Lords: it should continue as a scrutinising Chamber but respect the primacy of the Commons, which certainly is the democratically elected Chamber.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister really think that next week’s by-election, with 31 electors who are the children and grandchildren of people who got there illegitimately, is, in a modern democracy, the right way to elect Members of Parliament in another place?

[Chloe Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Labour Member of Parliament, so he might recall that Labour had a hand in the legislation that guides this process. He will also recall that the Conservative party won the general election on a manifesto that said it would not prioritise reform of the House of Lords.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Never mind the House of Lords. When are we going to see this House reduced to 600?

[Mr Speaker]

It is all very well the hon. Gentleman breezily declaring, “Never mind about the House of Lords.” The question, inconveniently for him, is focused on the House of Lords. Generosity gets the better of me, however, and I am itching to hear the ministerial reply.

[Chloe Smith]

Mr Speaker, I think the simplest answer is that the Boundary Commission will return with its proposals shortly and the House will have the pleasure of looking at them.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to widen access to senior public appointments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to mark National Democracy Week.

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

National Democracy Week begins on Monday and events will take place across the United Kingdom, encouraging everyone to get involved in our democracy. I thank those partners who are helping particularly to make sure that we reach under-registered groups. I hope that Members across the House will support it.

[Luke Graham]

National Democracy Week is about encouraging people to be active British citizens. What steps have been taken to extend the National Citizen Service to Scotland, so that my constituents can have the same opportunities as others throughout the United Kingdom?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for National Democracy Week and for the National Citizen Service. Funding is available for the devolved Administrations to deliver the NCS, although the decision is a matter for them. As a proud Unionist like him, I would like to see young people across the United Kingdom benefiting from it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am just wondering how the Government can, with a straight face, celebrate something called National Democracy Week when they are completely undermining democracy in this country by passing laws without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, ripping up the Sewel convention and fundamentally undermining devolution.

[Chloe Smith]

There was not a question in that, but none the less, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. This Government believe fundamentally in the treatment that our House of Commons has given to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will now serve our country, in leaving the European Union, with certainty for businesses and citizens.

[Mr Speaker]

I think a fair interpretation is that it was a rhetorical question, which is not entirely without precedent in the history of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)]

14. What representations he has received on the legality of the voter ID pilots.

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

My Department has not received any representations about the legality of the pilots. The powers to make the pilot scheme orders are in section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which was, of course, passed by Parliament. Those powers enable changes to be made to rules regarding the conduct of any local elections in England and Wales.

[Mr Sweeney]

At the last general election, my constituency had the lowest turnout in the UK, and it also has a low registration rate. What kind of democracy are we living in when the Government actively pursue a scheme that results in people being denied the vote, as was shown by the pilot in May, instead of seeking better engagement and participation in our democracy by potential voters?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will have just heard me setting out measures to encourage more people to be involved in our democracy. He knows, as I hope does every Opposition Member, that there is a point of principle at stake here. Do we defend our system from fraud or do we not?

[Laura Smith]

Two barristers have concluded that there is no provision in the Representation of the People Act to introduce schemes by secondary legislation that restrict or discourage voting, and that the scheme is therefore beyond the scope of the law. Can the Minister reassure the House that she acted within the law?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I can. I can also reassure those listening that this is clearly a series of Labour Whips’ handout questions.

[Laura Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Chloe Smith]

The Labour party might like to reflect on the fact that it was its 2000 Act that allowed the pilots to be run.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) is signalling that that was very much her own question. It has to be said that Whips’ handouts are also not unprecedented in the House, but she is keen to draw attention to her own independent mindedness on this important matter.

[Danielle Rowley]

I recently spoke at an event at Newbattle Abbey College in my constituency about encouraging people to vote—no Whips were in attendance. Meanwhile, the Government’s voter ID pilots saw at least 340 people turned away, and many more would have been discouraged from voting. Is this not a slap in the face of people who are working hard to encourage people to vote?

[Chloe Smith]

To be clear, that was 340 out of a total of more than 230,000. I also want to be clear on the matter of principle. The Labour party accepts this principle for its own selection meetings, where it routinely asks for ID from members. Is this good enough for Labour but not for the rest of the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. What progress has my hon. Friend made in allowing the Jain community to declare their religion in the new census, and will she agree to meet a delegation from the community?

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

Yes, and I look forward to that meeting. Since the response to consultation on the matter in May 2016, the Office for National Statistics has continued to consult stakeholders, and has met the members of the all-party group on Jainism. It is considering all the evidence provided, and will finalise its recommendations shortly.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Minister please explain how the Government justify wasting time and taxpayers’ money on the “testing and scrutiny” of contractual arrangements, only to ignore their own highest possible risk rating for Capita and award it the fire and rescue contract?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that representatives of Wick High School were here last week—thank you for your kind remarks about them. Does the Minister agree that bringing schools the length and breadth of Britain, including my faraway constituency, to the House will do much for learning about democracy here in the mother of Parliaments?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to this place. I hope that they will find things of interest to them during National Democracy Week, and that the resource packs that are available to all parliamentarians will enable them to make the most of it.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson]

There is method in my madness, Ms Dorries, if you would just bear with me.

The 2nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry—the Ox and Bucks—under the command of Major Howard, were tasked with securing the flank and the bridge, now known as the Pegasus bridge, over the canal. Major Howard was given the rather open-ended commission to “hold until relieved”—to hold the bridge and flank until relieved—by Brigadier Lord Lovat. That was one of the key engagements, using the glider force from the Air Assault Brigade for the first time to maintain the eastern flank despite fierce counter-attacks from the Germans throughout the night. Lovat did indeed eventually relieve Howard.

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

I finally understand where the analogy is going, but does that make the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the Germans?

[Christian Matheson]

I would like to think that we are all on the same side in this Committee and all want the finest parliamentary representation possible. What it does mean is that we have finally managed to get the Minister to contribute to the Committee, which is fantastic. “Hold until relieved” was Major Howard’s injunction and that has been the rather open-ended injunction that the Minister’s colleagues have given her.

There is a potential ending: the appearance of Lord Lovat and the commando brigade coming from Sword beach, in the guise proposed by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. If the Minister can hold for three more weeks, perhaps we will get to the place she is going, but hold until relieved, when we are talking about parliamentary democracy, is not the ideal scenario. I pay tribute to the Minister for her resilience in all this, but it would be nice if she could respond to some of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has posed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

The right hon. Gentleman deserves it. I go back to my previous point—he has enhanced his personal reputation in this matter. Thank you for bearing with me, Ms Dorries. Open-ended commissions and instructions are not always helpful. At some point, we need to get to a conclusion in this matter. Simply knocking it into the long grass is not the way forward for parliamentary democracy. Debate is always better than closing down debate. With that, for one more week, I resume my seat.

[Chloe Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. Out of personal courtesy to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, I rise to state that there is no more I can or will add to what has already been said on the subject. I do not think the place to answer his questions is under a motion for adjournment.

Question put.

UK Intergovernmental Co-operation

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Labour Front-Bench speaker, let me say that I would like to bring in the Minister at 3.48 pm.

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

On a point of order, Mr Wilson. I fear that we will be voting at that time.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

We could be. Fifteen minutes will be allowed for the vote, and then we will come back for the remainder of the sitting.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.

I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for requesting the debate, and I shall of course be sure to leave him time to respond to what has been said. He has prompted a rich exchange on intergovernmental relations, and I thank him for doing so. I am also grateful to other hon. Members for all the contributions that have been made.

This is, after all, a timely debate, considering various recent events, but I shall preface my remarks on the subject by thinking about the principles that we operate on in our constitution, such as it is. We do not have a codified constitution such as Canada’s, to provide a model for other countries around the world to use. Instead, we have the product of organic history, as my hon. Friend said. We have a flexible approach that allows us to respond as circumstances demand and, crucially, to reflect the different ways in which we have, across the four nations of the United Kingdom, reached today’s point.

I was conscious of the remarks with which my hon. Friend began. He said that we ought not to aim for artificial uniformity, and that we should not ignore either the history of how we got here or the present-day realities. That was a very helpful reminder of the principles that we might use to approach today’s debate. How do we keep the structures that we have fit for the future? That is the question on which I wish to offer some thoughts to the Chamber.

Our exit from the European Union of course prompts a range of extremely challenging considerations. We need to ensure that our statute book continues to function, to examine those areas of policy in which EU law has created consistent UK-wide practices to date, and to ensure that our intergovernmental ways of working continue to be fit for purpose. Crucially, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we need to safeguard the integrity of our precious Union—I, too, am a strong believer in that.

It is imperative, as the UK leaves the EU, that all the Administrations of the UK benefit from a unified approach. That is only possible through the strength of our relationships and our joint working. The Joint Ministerial Committee structure that has been discussed today provides that but, while it has served us well, it is still evolving. That is important, and there is a very current example of that.

Recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and I chaired an additional forum with the devolved Administrations under that structure—that was only on 24 May—and we look forward to the next one soon. In itself, that is an example of the flexibility in our constitutional arrangements that let us convene that group fast and effectively.

We have found ourselves in times that our colleagues in the devolved Administrations agree are not normal, but the Government are absolutely committed to working closely with those Administrations to ensure full engagement and collaboration across the breadth of what we need to do to leave the EU. That was very obvious during the months that were spent working with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and Northern Ireland civil servants on revised proposals for the EU withdrawal Bill, which the Welsh Government have confirmed safeguard devolution and the future of a successful United Kingdom.

The ways in which we work with the devolved Administrations are supported by departmental structures inside the UK Government. For example, as part of my own Department, there is a thing called the UK governance group, which brings together the whole of the UK Government’s work on constitutional and devolution issues under the oversight of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It brings together the Cabinet Office’s constitutional work, the Scotland and Wales Offices, and the office of the Advocate General, and it works closely with the Northern Ireland Office. We can therefore conduct that work to strengthen and maintain the Union across all Departments as a shared responsibility. That is very important, allowing us to have detailed expertise and, crucially, to hear the voice of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at the very highest levels of Government through the Secretaries of State who relate to those Offices.

As well as getting on with our immediate business—not least leaving the EU—and considering the structures that facilitate that, we must also look to the future. As hon. Members will know, our departure from the EU will result in a significant increase in the decision-making powers and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. New responsibilities will go to Edinburgh, Cardiff and—once a new Executive is formed—Belfast. In some of those areas, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will continue to work closely in frameworks across the whole of the UK. That will be done through principles that have been agreed through all the devolved Administrations.

As we set up those arrangements, one thing is clear: the success of each of them surely will rely on the strength of our relationships and of the partnerships and collaboration that have been a theme of the debate. It is so important that we work together to put arrangements in place that stand the test of time. We must seek to achieve that in order to provide certainty for people and businesses living and operating in the UK and the flexibility to adapt should that be needed.

Hon. Members considered during the debate how we can improve existing intergovernmental structures. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling in particular for laying out his vision, but I also note the suggestions by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) about the Council of Europe. Let me also take a moment to thank the Select Committees of both Houses and of the devolved legislatures, as well as academics, for their suggestions about this subject. This is, as I said, a rich and timely debate.

The UK Government recognise the need to ensure that our structures are adaptable and fit for the future. The Prime Minister led a discussion about this very issue at the plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee in March, at which Ministers agreed to review existing intergovernmental structures and the memorandum of understanding. That review rightly provides us with an opportunity to look carefully at the current ways of working between the different Administrations. It means we can learn from the existing arrangements that work well, listen to the ideas that have been put forward today, and improve less effective structures as we put our future frameworks in place.

We have to ensure that intergovernmental structures and agreements remain adaptable enough to address the interests of the four Governments and their people at any given time. As we do so, we should continue to reflect on our unique circumstances—the different settlements and the constitutional history that led us to this place. The UK is not Canada, after all—close friends though we are. We can certainly learn from other countries, but it is important that we get this right.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to close this Opposition day debate. I welcome the contributions from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. May I take this opportunity to welcome the new hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who I can see in her place? I hope she has enjoyed this afternoon’s debate, in the first of many weeks in which she will be participating in the House’s business. It is a pleasure to see her in her place. As a fellow by-election winner, I can sympathise with her, given her no doubt frenetic first week. I wish her every success in her work, as does the whole House.

We heard from the inimitable hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who gave us a tour of his views on many things and who likes to paint himself as a peacemaker. I for one in the Government would welcome that role from him. I look forward to spending many more pleasurable hours in his company, talking about, for example, the frameworks that we will put in place on our departure from the European Union and how they will add to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and a future Northern Ireland Assembly.

I also welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who helpfully reminded the House that the debate on the order relating to the current boundary review is but four sitting weeks away. Like him, I think that that is a reasonable period to be able to anticipate.

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who rightfully spoke on his Bill. May I say what a pleasure it is to spend time with him and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) every Wednesday morning? We are endlessly entertained by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, who most recently did his best to list every single Member of the House of Lords. As you will know, Mr Speaker, it is not in order in any debate in this House simply to read out a list, so he was gently guided back towards a better form of debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who reminded us that Cornwall and the issues of the Cornish must never be shared and must never be split asunder. Only a few nights ago, we had a debate I remember very clearly, relating to another part of my portfolio, on the representation of the Cornish national identity, which I look forward to reprising with him.

We heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who I cannot see in his place at this moment and from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). She reminded us of the height of public opinion in 2009 and 2010, which was when I entered the House, arguably as a result of the expenses scandal, in the by-election I had the great privilege to win. We also heard from the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), who put on record some very serious points, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). He was extremely helpful in enlightening the House about the rule of G.K. Chesterton.

Let me add to this list the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East, who I have already mentioned, and the hon. Member for Stone, who reminded us of what it means to fulfil constituency duties in a considerably larger geographical constituency than many of the rest of us. I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who put some issues on the record with passion. I admire and respect that passion, and I am glad she came here today to do that.

Let me address some of the issues raised in the debate before returning to the motion. A number of points were made about the procedures of the House for private Members’ Bills. I will not go into that in detail, because it is not my place to do so. It is a matter of procedure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a few remarks about that earlier on, but I think it is a matter for another day.

Remarks were made about reform of the House of Lords. The hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Stroud and I, with others, had a debate on this matter only yesterday in Westminster Hall—what a long time ago that already seems. In that debate, I had cause to remind Members, and I will do so again now, that the size of the House of Lords is smaller than when the current Prime Minister took office. To all those hon. Members who have said that the House of Lords has grown, I say in fact it has not; it has become smaller.

[Afzal Khan]

What is the Conservative party’s position in relation to the upper House? Why are you stuffing it with the unelected when you are trying to cut the elected?

[Mr Speaker]

I have not been stuffing the upper House for anybody. I am not doing that. The Government can answer for their own position, of course.

[Chloe Smith]

And nor are the Government. The key point, as I have just said, is that the other place is now smaller than when the Prime Minister took office. That is as a result of a policy of restraint, which she is showing in appointments, and of the Government policy, which the hon. Gentleman invites me to set out. I will take just a minute on it, Mr Speaker.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I am just in the middle of setting out the Government’s policy, which I have been asked to do.

We do not believe that reform of the House of Lords is the correct priority at this moment. There are many other things that the two Houses are being asked to consider. The House of Lords itself has set out a number of ways to reform without the need for primary legislation. We seek to support it in that.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She talks about reform of the House of Lords and cutting the number of MPs in this House. The Bill received a Second Reading on Friday 1 December 2017. Since then, how many new Conservative peers have been put into the House of Lords?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will remember from our debate only yesterday that the number of the most recent appointments made is 13. Let me repeat one more time, should it be needed, that the number of Lords has reduced since the Prime Minister came into office. In part, that is due to a culture and a new policy of retirement, which I welcome and which we did go into in some detail yesterday, so I will leave that there.

I want to respond to a couple of points that were made about the policy of individual electoral registration. I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) to his relatively new position on the Front Bench—it has already been very good to serve with him on Bill and statutory instrument Committees—but I am afraid that he is wrong in his remarks about IER. He spoke about a drop in the register that he thinks occurred after it was introduced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean explained, what we saw after the introduction of IER was that both accuracy and completeness were maintained. The crucial point is this: we expect the accuracy of the register to be able to be maintained at a higher level with the introduction of IER, because it encourages individuals to register themselves, individually—the clue is in the name. It is about accuracy.

The hon. Member for City of Chester conflated it with a second, separate issue, which is whether more have joined the register since. That is indeed the case. As the register currently stands, it is larger than it was in December 2015. That is a good thing. That is because our reforms to open up online registration, for example, and the occurrence of several major elections have encouraged many people to register. That is an unmitigated good thing. This Government are committed to helping more people to register to vote. That is what I stand for as the Minister responsible for electoral registration and other matters. I want to see it done with the security and integrity of the register foremost in mind. We have had debates in this place and elsewhere that suggest that the Labour party is not quite so committed to those principles. That is what we saw in some of the desperate slurs that have been made this afternoon. We have heard words such as “gerrymandering” and about the “manipulation” of the register from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I think that is outrageous. I said so early on in the debate and I say it again: it is an outrageous calumny to say that the Government are gerrymandering or trying to manipulate the register. I am not. The Government are not—does he think we are, really?

[Mr Mahmood]

Perry Barr, not Ladywood.

[Chloe Smith]

I stand corrected, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. Let me move on to the ways in which this debate has been important this afternoon and deal directly with the motion in front of us.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the Minister for her gracious reference to me a few minutes ago. I point out in passing that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and I are two exceedingly different people, and we would both be equally embarrassed to be confused. Does the Minister recognise my point that distance and geography have to be taken into consideration by the Boundary Commission for Scotland?

[Chloe Smith]

I stand corrected twice in a row on hon. Members’ constituency names—perhaps I need the help of the Boundary Commission to rearrange constituencies and thus learn them better. In all seriousness, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Boundary Commissions are independent. This is crucially important, and he would not expect me in this debate to be able to prejudge their reviews, and nor would I try to do so. Although I respect the points that he came here today to make, it is not for me to answer the question that he just posed.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point about the geographical size of constituencies. That was indeed considered when we looked at the rules that the Boundary Commissions were set. I accept that he may not feel that there was sufficient flexibility, but there are rules that govern the maximum geographical size of constituencies, thus giving the Boundary Commissions some scope to reflect the issues that he raised in the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I very much welcome that reminder from my right hon. Friend.

Turning to the motion, the debate has been about a fundamental principle of how this House functions, but this is not about the Bill from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. It is about whether a Committee—any Committee—can be permitted by the House to disregard this place’s rules and conventions.

The Opposition motion seeks to undermine a fundamental principle and cornerstone of our constitutional settlement: the financial initiative of the Crown. It is a long-standing constitutional principle that the Government of the day initiate financial resolutions. I can only apologise to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire if he thinks this another lecture—perhaps in his day students walked out of lectures if they did not like them. It would be regrettable if he felt the need to walk out of this discussion. The Government have to be responsible and accountable to taxpayers for the money they spend. The motion seeks to erode the fundamental principle that the Crown, through its Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, has the exclusive right of initiation and of defining the purposes for which the money is required.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Minister drew our attention to the situation over the border. Do the Scottish Government delegate power to the Scottish Parliament to set spending, or do they protect the money as the UK Government do?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome the opportunity to add to this discussion, but the question of whether we can learn from the mechanisms of other Parliaments and Governments might have to be a debate for another day.

The mechanisms of this Parliament are that a Committee requires a money resolution to go through the substance of a Bill. If a Committee is allowed to consider the substance of a Bill in the absence of such a resolution, the Crown, through its Ministers, loses its important constitutional right to define the purposes for which that money is required. That is not just about being able to make progress; it is not just about saying, “Don’t worry about the money. It’ll come later”; as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out earlier, to do this to a Committee would strip it of the ability to consider matters properly. As she set out, without such a resolution, a Committee would just be aimlessly wandering through a Bill with or without amendments but not properly guided by a money resolution. At best, it would be theoretical, at worst farcical, and that is not what our constituents expect of us.

The motion questions the role of the Executive—that is regardless of what party is in power. The fundamentals of any Government are that they take decisions and are accountable for them—to taxpayers where it is about how public money is spent. That is what it means to be a responsible Government. From what I see on the Order Paper today, I do not think the Opposition believe in responsible government; they believe in political points scoring. The House runs on its conventions and the assurance that centuries-old practice and procedure is there to protect the rights of all parliamentarians. The Government respect those rights of the House, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out earlier. To undermine that for party political reasons by tabling such a motion compromises the idea of the Opposition ever being a responsible Government. The Government are elected by the people and have the right and duty to initiate financial proceedings in the interests of the taxpayer.

As my right hon. Friend made absolutely clear at the start of the debate, the motion has nothing to do with the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. I am sorry about that. I am sorry that he has come here today, as he does every Wednesday morning, to talk about a Bill for which the House has not granted him financial authority. I am sorry about that because he is a lovely man—we get on well on Wednesday mornings—and clearly has the support of his friends around him in the Chamber, but I am afraid that his party is letting him down with the motion on the Order Paper tonight. They are suggesting a huge move in the procedures of the House, all hung around his Bill. His Bill has merits, and those could be discussed, but there is not the time to do so.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the Minister for her kind words. For me, this is not the fault of the Labour party. Every week for five weeks we have come here, only for nothing to be done. Not a single word in the Bill has been dealt with. That is the issue. That is where time is being wasted.

[Chloe Smith]

If that is the issue, the hon. Gentleman should have had a word with his Front-Bench team about laying a better Opposition day motion. This motion did not allow him to have those issues out today, although many hon. Members have enjoyed going through related subjects.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Draft Official Statistics Order 2018

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Official Statistics Order 2018.

It is a pleasure to be here today and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I shall begin with the purpose of the order and take the Committee briefly through what we are considering. The order updates the list of non-Crown organisations that produce official statistics, as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. Statistics are, of course, a pillar of democratic debate. They allow for a window on society and the economy and enable people to judge the performance of Government. They are fundamental to the decisions that people make in their lives every day, whether that is at home or at work or, indeed, when they are, quite rightly, scrutinising the Government, and in this House. The code of practice for statistics plays a very important role in ensuring that producers of official statistics inspire the public confidence that everyone wishes for by demonstrating trustworthiness and providing high-quality statistics that enhance public value.

The order revokes and replaces the Official Statistics Order 2013, updating the list of UK non-Crown bodies that may produce official statistics. Let me give the briefest of contexts for the order. From December 2007, the Statistics and Registration Service Act established the non-ministerial department the statistics board—known as the UK Statistics Authority—as an independent statutory body, to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good. The Act’s definition of official statistics allows the flexibility to add non-Crown bodies to or remove them from the authority’s remit by order. This order provides an updated list of bodies whose statistical activities will be monitored, scrutinised and reported on by the authority.

The authority will work with those bodies designated as producers of official statistics to promote good practice for the production and publication of official statistics, including through the code of practice for statistics; to monitor and report on the production and publication of official statistics; and to assess the treatment by producers of official statistics against the code of practice and to publish the results of those assessments. If statistics comply with the code, the authority will designate them as national statistics.

It is important that the changes are applied to UK-wide and English organisations. There have been four previous UK orders, in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013. Regularly updating the orders ensures that the scope of official statistics remains accurate and relevant in the light of the establishment, abolition or name changes of public bodies. Section 6 of the 2007 Act provides that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or Northern Ireland Departments can determine that statistics produced by non-Crown bodies are brought into scope. There have been equivalent orders for Wales in 2013 and 2017, for Scotland in 2008 and 2010, and for Northern Ireland in 2012. I can give details of those should the Committee need them.

I am sure that fellow Members will agree that it is an important move to designate these bodies as producers of official statistics to bring them within the scope of the code of practice for statistics. To return to my point at the outset, that will help to provide assurance that the statistics produced by them are trustworthy and are of high quality and public value. The purpose of this order is to specify the organisations subject to the code of practice.

Let me explain exactly what changes the order makes. It is important to note that although the order covers a wide range of bodies, which are listed in the schedule, the vast majority were already designated under the previous order, so this order is a very minor adjustment. It adds four new bodies to the list in the 2013 order. Those are Monitor, the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, the Office for Students and the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Monitor and the NHSTDA are the main organisations that make up NHS Improvement.

The instrument also alters the name of one body that was contained in the 2013 order, following a legal change to the body’s name: the Rail Passengers’ Council was renamed the Passengers’ Council by order in 2010. The instrument removes no bodies from the existing list.

The UK Statistics Authority was consulted in preparing the order, in accordance with the Act, and is content for it to be laid. My Department has laid the order on behalf of other Government Departments, in preference to each Department laying an order for the bodies for which it is responsible. That is intended to make best use of parliamentary time.

In conclusion, the order updates the list of bodies subject to the UKSA’s oversight. That is in order to capture the value of official statistics to society. Some, such as the authority’s inaugural chair, have likened the necessity of good statistics to clean water and sound money. I am sure the Committee appreciates both of those.

I thank all those who have worked on this and who work for the UKSA for their important role. I hope the Committee will join me in agreeing the order because it will play a vital part in maintaining public confidence in the code of practice, the UKSA and the statistics themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. I welcome the Opposition’s support in principle for the order. I will endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, to give reassurance to the Committee.

On the question of the charitable status or otherwise of bodies in the list, hon. Members will have seen the following on page 3 of the order, in the explanatory note that follows it:

“The persons listed in the Schedule include a number of registered charities, but this Order does not impose any additional burdens on them.”

To throw a little more light on that for the Committee, I should say that the great majority of bodies have already been scrutinised by Parliament for being in the order. I do not believe that the four we are adding today, which I named earlier, are charities. The overall framework that we are operating is set out by the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.

To make that distinction a little clearer, I should say that “official statistics” as a term already covers statistics produced by Government Departments or organisations at that level—persons acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2007 Act then makes provision for an order to specify such other statistics as may be included in that specification. That is what we are doing today: we are updating the order that does that.

On the question of whether that means that there is a genuine question for debate about the role of charities in the list, I dare say that Parliament has done that already by virtue of having looked at the order in the past. We are looking to get to a high quality set of information that is of public value. If it should be that organisations of various types come near that definition, that is the matter of our debate today.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly asked whether the independence of these organisations will be reduced by their being included in the order. The very opposite is true. As I hope I made clear in my remarks, we are talking about including bodies under the umbrella framework of the best quality statistics. We are talking about a code of practice—a proper framework—through which we can inspire public confidence by these statistics being of the best quality and being available, designated as official, for use for or against the Government or any other body or person in the land. That is the point. We are talking about the very stuff of independence and quality. That is what we are trying to achieve by bringing appropriate bodies into the ambit of this framework.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the bodies in question might require any additional support. Certainly, they have been consulted on these changes through the relevant Government Departments, so I am confident, in bringing forward the order today, that the bodies to be added are appropriate, that they will be able to manage this role and that the code of practice and umbrella framework provide the support and guidance so that we have statistics of the highest possible quality in a way that people can trust.

The UK Statistics Authority is the key because it is an independent body that has the right to intervene at its own discretion on matters of statistics. It is responsible for a huge range of material, and we can all take confidence in its independence and ability to head up the framework that we are looking at today.

I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he was looking for. I thank you, Mr Paisley, for the brevity and clarity that I hope we have been able to get to in the Committee and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.