Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chloe Smith
As I mentioned, we are looking at a range of measures, including ways to improve the security of postal and proxy voting. It is important to recognise that electoral fraud in any form is a crime, which is why we should stand by measures to deal with it. We should be on the side of the victims of that crime, whose voices are taken away—indeed, stolen—by such fraud. That is a good reason why this was in our manifesto, on which, I gently remind my right hon. Friend, we both stood.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Of course those citizens whose voices are taken away because they do not have photographic ID are also victims. As the Minister is concerned about fraudulent votes, can she tell the House how many fraudulent votes were prevented in each of the pilot areas?
Chloe Smith
As I have already said, evaluations of the pilots set out a range of data. The hon. Gentleman’s question is not the sort that can easily be answered, as I hope the more cerebral Members of the House will understand. That is because it is hard to put a figure on crime that is deterred. The question Labour Front Benchers really have to answer is: in the dying days of this Labour Front-Bench team, whose side is Labour on, given that the Leader of the Opposition employed a convicted electoral fraudster in his office?
Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
My Department has regular engagement with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on a range of issues relevant to Scotland, including the renewable energy sector.
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady is right; we have an advantage with that and with our wind speeds, mountains and hydro schemes. The Government are supporting technology. Wave and tidal technology is being investigated in universities, and we are completely behind that, should it prove to work.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) is right about the geographical advantage. What infrastructure work are the Government undertaking—for example, interconnectors and storage—so that the clean green energy that Scotland is able to generate can be shared with the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
As the hon. Gentleman knows, interconnectors are a devolved matter, but we are looking at upgrading the schemes so that we can transfer our power across the United Kingdom and the advantage that we have in Scotland with renewables and our growing renewable industry can benefit the whole UK.
Draft Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks setting out the Government’s position, and in particular for her assurances—which we entirely accept—that today’s regulations have nothing to do with the general election that has recently been announced.
We have concerns about some of the measures, however, and the announcement of the general election and the impending Dissolution of Parliament mean that we are being rushed into a situation without giving sufficient attention to those concerns. The Opposition support a review of the model of the annual canvass of electors, with the aim of making it easier and cheaper to administer, as the Minister said, especially when EROs are facing increasingly squeezed budgets. I suspect, however, that a long speech on the effect of cuts on local government budgets might be ruled out of order by your good self, Ms Buck, so I will not go there.
It is essential that changes to the model do not jeopardise the primary purpose of the annual canvass, which is to ensure that the electoral register is as accurate as possible. We are concerned that there is a real risk that the proposed reform will have a detrimental impact on the accuracy of the register. The Minister has stated that four alternative models for the annual canvass were piloted in 2016 and 2017—[Interruption.] The Minister corrects me; there may have been only three.
The Cabinet Office’s 2017 evaluation report found that all those alternative models provided the same quality of information at a lower cost, but only two models—the email and telephone models—provide the same volume of information as the current model. The report also included EROs’ concerns in respect of the reliability of all the alternative models.
The Electoral Commission also provided an evaluation report for the pilot schemes. It stated that the current canvass system is “not sustainable” and made a number of observations about the pilot schemes. It noted that evidence from the pilot schemes suggested that the use of data by EROs would assist in targeting their canvassing, and recommended that the Government develop that approach. It also stated, however, that it did not think that
“any of the…pilot models are ready to be put into practice yet”.
The Government’s reform envisages a new model of the annual canvass that is effectively a hybrid with elements from each of the pilot scheme models. In short, the reformed model begins with a data-discernment step for most properties, which are consequently identified as green or red. Green properties are then treated with a light-touch approach through route one, while red properties are treated with a more intensive approach through route two. A third category of properties, listed by group exemption—for example, properties of multiple occupation, such as student halls or residential homes—is treated by contact with the property manager through route three.
Although we welcome the principles behind the reform of the annual canvass, we have a number of concerns about the preparatory work that has led to it. First, the proposed reform has not been tested, because it is a hybrid model in which the Government have sought to derive the best elements from each of the pilot scheme models. It would be sensible and reasonable for the hybrid reform model to be tested in an appropriate pilot scheme before steps were taken to change the current annual canvass system.
Secondly, we are concerned that the pilot schemes were too limited. The Electoral Commission’s evaluation report noted the limitations of the 2017 pilot scheme, in which 24 local authorities participated. That is not a large number, especially when only a small number tested each alternative model. Moreover, each alternative model involved more than one change from the current canvass process, which meant that it was not always possible to draw a clear conclusion on the effectiveness of the individual elements and changes.
Thirdly, we have serious concerns about how the reform will affect under-represented groups. The Electoral Commission’s most recent study of the accuracy and completeness of the 2018 electoral register found that up to 9.5 million people are not correctly registered to vote, which is an increase of 1 million since its previous study in 2016.
The later study also found huge variations in registration levels based on factors such as age, mobility and ethnicity. For example, 71% of people aged 18 to 24 are registered to vote compared with 93% of people over 55; 58% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 91% of homeowners; and 75% of people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds are registered to vote compared with 84% from a white ethnic background. It is therefore disappointing that the pilot schemes did not include any objective to find out whether the alternative models had any impact on those under-registered groups.
Given the important role that the annual canvass plays under the current system, we believe that the proposed reform must be subject to testing by an appropriate pilot scheme, which is sufficiently large and specifically investigates the reform’s impact on currently under-represented groups.
The Cabinet Office recently published its equality impact assessment of the proposed reform, and I will pick up on a number of points that concern us. Under route one, where the data indicates that there is no change in household composition, it will be at the EROs’ discretion as to whether to adopt a light-touch approach. Under the heading “Age”, on page 14, the equality impact assessment says:
“There is a risk, therefore, of older electors – who are likely to be less IT literate – becoming ostracised by the modernisation of the annual canvass. For example, being targeted with electronic communications rather than traditional canvassing methods.”
Under the same heading of “Age”, the equality impact assessment says on page 15: “With regards to attainers”—that is, someone who has just attained the right to vote—
“if the messaging on Route 1 canvass communications or electronic communications is not clear enough, there is a risk this could result in new attainers being missed. Unclear messaging on communications may result in recipients failing to understand the need to notify this change to the ERO. This is because the Route 1 paper communication will not require a response if the household has no changes in composition to report, nor will it be followed up with further contact by an ERO.”
I get the impression that that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent made, namely that if somebody misses a first communication, it is unclear what measures there will be to follow up that first communication. Can I ask the Minister to return to that point?
Chloe Smith
For the sake of clarity, I have ensured that we have the figures available for the Committee from the great amount of backing detail that exists. I can confirm that, under route one, follow-ups can be expected via a combination of email and paper, and that, under route two—where we would expect that the follow-ups are most required, because route one is the unchanged category and route two covers those cases where there is change—there will be three steps, of which one must be a paper form, one must be a form of personal contact and one can be a method that is at the discretion of EROs.
Those are minimum steps and more steps can be taken if EROs wish. I underline that the whole point of what we are doing here is allowing greater discretion to EROs to use better methods rather than prescribed methods. I hope that is helpful.
Christian Matheson
I thank the Minister for that intervention. Our concern, which I think she is edging towards addressing, is that there are methods of follow-up that are different from the form of initial contact that is made. If that initial contact has failed, obviously a different contact method would be necessary.
We also have a concern, which I will come on to in greater detail shortly, that because these are minimum steps, when local authorities and EROs are hard pressed, unfortunately the minimum becomes the basic standard.
Chloe Smith
May I add a further point to that, because, of course, the question that follows is: are the numbers that I have just given different from those for what happens already? I can reassure the Committee that currently the canvass provides for three stages that use paper, including the so-called household enquiry form, and some form of personal contact is also possible. Regarding the figures that I cited, even if they were minimums, and we certainly expect greater local discretion to be used, they are as effective and as efficient as the current system. So the change that we are considering today is a positive rather than a negative one.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and I welcome the statements that she has just made. However, I will return to the question of the equality impact assessment. The Government have attempted to address some of the questions about this process in that document as well. The equality impact assessment says:
“There is no requirement on EROs to utilise the alternative communication methods”.
It goes on to say that “the EC”—that is, the Electoral Commission—
“will also design a suite of good practice guidance to support the reformed canvass process.”
However, our concern is that because EROs will no longer be mandated to have a household visit under route one, at a time—as I have already mentioned—of increasingly squeezed budgets, many EROs may opt for the light-touch approach, which means that parts of the electorate might be missed. I hope that the Minister has gone some way to addressing that concern in her previous intervention, but it is something that we will watch keenly, to see how things develop in practice.
Finally, under the heading of “Race”, the equality impact assessment says:
“We do not anticipate that the reforms will discriminate either indirectly or directly against the protected characteristic listed above.”
That is a rather terse and dismissive response, which gives no basis for that particular claim. We know that people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds are significantly less likely to be registered to vote. We know that ethnic minorities, particularly people from black, Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds, are more likely to live in areas of deprivation. The equality impact assessment does not address our concerns that under-represented groups will be impacted by the reforms.
More broadly, we are concerned that the Government want to roll out what we believe is discriminatory voter identification requirements in polling stations—a deliberate and well-established method of voter suppression used by right-wing politicians in the United States to suppress voter turnout among minority groups. Such proposals are a blatant attempt by the Conservatives to suppress voters, deny people their democratic rights and rig the result of future general elections. The Windrush scandal has shown what happens when millions of people who lack voter ID are shut out by this Government.
Ultimately, any changes to the annual canvass will not be enough to ensure that every eligible voter can have their say in our electoral processes. Our current system of individual electoral registration has not achieved what we were told it would. Millions of people are still missing from the register, with disproportionately low levels of registration among young people, private renters and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
The Tories know that when lots of people are registered to vote, they are less likely to do well in elections. We believe that is why the Government have done nothing to tackle the issue; that is why I return to the question of voter suppression. The Prime Minister even tried to fix the date of the forthcoming general election to make it harder for students to take part.
Instead of tinkering around the edges, we need a Labour Government that will take radical steps to drastically increase voter registration, such as examining the use of Government data to automatically place people on the electoral roll. That could be achieved by expanding the data sources available to EROs, such as those maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other listings maintained by local authorities. Under a modernised system, citizens could well be added to the electoral register, or their addresses updated, without their being required to take any further steps. That would take a lot of pressure off the annual canvass. Citizens could opt out if they wished to do so.
There are many successful examples around the world of automatic voter registration that would take the pressure off an annual canvass.
The Chair
Order. Can I gently bring the hon. Gentleman back to the business? He is in danger of straying too far.
Christian Matheson
Indeed, Ms Buck. I am trying to point out the alternatives to the annual canvass, which would take pressure off the EROs and therefore make their role in supporting that canvass as easy as possible. As always, I will follow your advice and do as I am told.
In the past, there has been support for automatic voter registration. In 2015, the cross-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee reaffirmed its previous view that voters should be registered to vote automatically using data already held by the Government. The Minister will be aware of the Electoral Commission’s recently published feasibility studies, which explore various options to modernise electoral registration. They consider the potential for giving EROs access to data from other public service providers; automatic or more automated forms of registration; and integration of electoral registration into public services. The Minister mentioned that point in her opening remarks, when she spoke about using other datasets such as those from the Department for Work and Pensions in order to validate some of the positions that had been taken by EROs in the proposed annual canvass.
It seemed to me as I listened that the Minister was edging towards suggesting that she was about to announce support for a method of automatic voter registration, but then she dashed my hopes by suggesting that it was still not the Government’s proposal to move to that position. I hope the fact that the Minister is considering using other datasets from Government and other public authority bodies to support the annual canvass means that she will now consider that proposal—at least until the next general election, when presumably a Labour Government will take over and consider it themselves. Can she clarify whether the use of datasets held by other public authorities, which I am pleased to hear she is proposing to use to help validate this canvass, is not yet going any further than that and that automatic registration is not currently on the Government’s agenda?
It is vital that every eligible voter can have their say in our democratic processes. As I have said, we support the review of the current model of the annual canvass of electors with the aim of making it easier and cheaper to administer. However, we are concerned at the timing for consideration of these statutory instruments; we have not been given enough time to consider them. We are concerned that they are about saving cash and not about ensuring that our electoral register is complete. We have genuine concerns that the proposed reform could have a detrimental impact on the accuracy of the register.
It is a significant and complicated piece of legislation that requires proper scrutiny by this House and should not be rushed through in days, before we all embark on a general election campaign. For those reasons, notwithstanding that I am grateful for the Minister’s explanations, we will vote against the proposals today.
Chloe Smith
I welcome some of the further points that the hon. Gentleman has made; I aim to respond to them.
It will be helpful to set out three further points to the Committee. First and most importantly, there is the impact on under-registered groups. That is crucial. The point of the regulations is that we are seeking to free up resources for EROs to do their job, which is to produce and maintain registers that are as complete and accurate as possible, and to do that by ensuring that all those who have a right to vote are invited to register. That is the goal. We are taking an unwise step in this place if we put more burdens in their way or if we fail to relieve them of an incredibly burdensome, Victorian process.
The Opposition are seemingly arguing that we should not relieve the EROs of an old, burdensome process, and instead condemn them to continuing it. I hesitate to move towards the Christmas, Dickens, Scrooge jokes, but do we really want to condemn administrators to continue to work under Victorian conditions when we could do so much better? Who is it that we do it better for? It is for those who may have the least attention paid to them under those burdensome processes—in other words, those who are least likely to be registered to vote. We wish to focus on those people and these methods allow, rather than disallow, that.
Christian Matheson
I have to repeat that the Opposition accept the need for change. Dickens jokes are always welcome, Christmas or not.
My concern is that several hybrid models have been melded into one. We have not had enough time to test the model yet and we do not feel that we have enough time to consider the proposals. Whether we are wholly opposed to the proposals at the end of the process is another matter entirely, but it is the question of how we scrutinise that we are concerned about.
Chloe Smith
In that case, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees; his first argument has fallen away. These pilots provide a better experience for under-registered groups. They show no negative impact on under-registered groups and EROs agreed that they had more resource available to target those groups. We should all surely support that.
I can give a few more points of detail that may be helpful. For example, let us look at attainers, who are the group coming towards the age of being able to vote; this is not an argument about whether that ought to be 16 or 18, but about those who attain the age for voting. The reform allows EROs to be helped to get data that will help them to work out where and who those young people are, and to invite them to register. It is about helping EROs get better quality data that they can use to target their work where it is most needed, and to get people on to the register.
Chloe Smith
I thank my hon. Friend.
In conclusion, let me say one other thing. In party political terms, the Labour party is being a little unwise to turn its back on the collaboration there has been with the Welsh Government and its colleagues in that place. It is also being a little foolish in saying that there has been no opportunity for scrutiny. While I was on maternity leave, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) was invited to the Department to talk about the measures, but no response was received from her. I have not had the chance to tell her that I was going to make that point, Ms Buck, because I was made aware of it just before I came to the Committee. It is, however, a sad day when a set of rushed arguments are produced by the Opposition when we are talking about an important set of reforms.
Christian Matheson
I will, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Opposition’s concern is that whenever the Government make changes to electoral registration or voting practices, they are all in the same direction: making it harder for people, and under-represented people in particular, to register or vote.
I have made it clear to the Minister that we understand the need for reform, but there is a sense that we are being bounced, in the context of a Government who are bringing in voter suppression models, so we wanted more time. I do not know about my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood not replying to the Minister, but I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for her offer, albeit briefly, to meet and talk through the measures. She has always tried to be open with me, and I am grateful for that.
Chloe Smith
I am likewise grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman engages in this subject matter. However, I am sorry to have to say that, if he thinks this is rushed, he simply has not been reading this stuff for the last three years. It is not rushed. In addition, if he thinks the regulations are about preventing people from voting, I cannot describe how badly he has got the wrong end of the stick. This is about allowing resources to be put in to identify exactly those voters. On that point, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Last week, the Government threw the DUP and every Unionist in Northern Ireland under a bus—presumably the bus with lies on the side about NHS funding and the EU that the Prime Minister spent so much of 2016 riding around the country in—providing the SNP with sackfuls of ammunition for its campaign promoting a referendum on independence. Why are the Government more concerned about Brexit than they are about maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom?
Oliver Dowden
The Government remain committed to maintaining the unity of our United Kingdom. That is why the Prime Minister has negotiated a deal that enables Northern Ireland to leave the customs union alongside the rest of the United Kingdom and has a consent mechanism for the arrangements included in that treaty.
Debate on the Address
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, that is not the only act of wanton expropriation—theft by the public sector of the private sector—that is envisaged, because Labour wants a massive £196 billion programme of nationalisation. That is the destruction that it would wreak on the UK economy.
By contrast, we want to boost the productivity of the whole UK with massive investment. We will begin Northern Powerhouse Rail, we will banish the rattling old Pacer trains, and we will invest in roads across the country and fleets of clean green buses. We understand that that is the way to create the platform for economic growth. If we have great infrastructure, great transport connectivity, and gigabit broadband, we have the environment in which business can flourish. We need business to flourish, do we not? Labour does not like business, but we need business to flourish not just for the tax yield, but because so many of the solutions to our problems, not least the environmental problems, are provided by the free market and by capitalism.
If we look at the battery technology in which this country now leads the world, or the designs for wind turbines or solar panels in which this country also leads the world, we see that it is not the Government who make that stuff. Yes, of course, the Government must lead and create the right fiscal and regulatory frameworks, but the Conservative vision is of a nation full of innovators, entrepreneurs and start-ups. That is not only how the green economy will take this country forward, but how we will become carbon neutral by 2050. That point is understood by proud free market Conservatives, including, as the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to point out earlier, some of my relatives—my crustier relatives, I should say—who joined the protests in the past few days but who understand the vital importance of free market economics for delivering the solutions we need.
What would Labour do, by contrast? Labour avowedly wishes to destroy capitalism. The Leader of the Opposition wants to foment the overthrow of capitalism. Not just that, he wants to whack up taxes on virtually everything, from income tax to pension tax to inheritance tax. He envisages having the highest corporation tax in Europe and a £196 billion programme of renationalisation.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. I am listening to his exposition on the merits of free market capitalism. When was the transition to that position from his previous position, which was, “F*** business”?
The Prime Minister
The destruction that Labour would do to business is, I think, the single gravest concern that this country faces—far greater than any fears that business may have had about a no-deal Brexit.
Worst of all for the certainty and confidence of business is what this Opposition would do were they ever to obtain power, because they would simply delay Brexit with yet more paralysis and pointless procrastination. I say let’s not wait—we cannot wait. Let’s get Brexit done so that we can take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. Let’s get Brexit done so that we can regulate differently and better: getting life-saving medicines faster and more cheaply to market for the NHS; galvanising coastal areas with a constellation of new free ports; and organising our immigration system ourselves so that we are open to talent and open to scientists.
Draft European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I say what a great pleasure it is to once again serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? This statutory instrument is a result of the Government’s mishandling of the Brexit negotiations. They attempted to push an unacceptable Brexit deal through the House on three separate occasions, meaning that we were forced to take part in European elections at short notice and at a time of political turmoil.
The Government are now required to extend elements required for the European Parliament’s post-election processes, which relate to storing documents, filing spending returns and investigating potential electoral offences. We do not oppose these necessary provisions, but it is crucial that the Government recognise that their chaotic mishandling of elections cannot continue. The integrity of our electoral system is paramount to the strength of our democracy, yet the Government continue to put our system at risk.
The Government’s attempt to push through a half-baked Brexit deal, without compromise, caused havoc on the country. The former Prime Minister’s grandstanding with the public ran the clock down while the Government refused to entertain the idea that we would partake in European elections, leaving electoral administrators tasked with delivering a national poll at extremely short notice, to ensure that eligible electors could exercise their democratic right to vote. Once again I pay tribute to those administrators in local authorities up and down the country who managed to achieve that, despite difficult timescales. However, the Government failed to deliver.
On polling day, many EU citizens living in the UK found that they were unable to vote because they had not completed a second piece of paperwork transferring their voting rights from their home member state to the UK. The Government are solely to blame for this chaos, having ignored the advice of the Electoral Commission to streamline the two-step registration process like other European countries did after the previous set of European elections.
Labour repeatedly warned the Government that EU nationals were not given enough time and notice to complete the necessary paperwork because of the short timeframe within which the election was called. However, the Government refused to listen, and their response was to tell EU citizens to vote in their own country; of course, for many EU citizens, the United Kingdom is their own country, having lived here for several decades in some cases. Not only did that add to the anger and sense of exclusion that many EU citizen residents of the UK felt but the Government were asking people to register to vote in a country where they might not have lived for decades and where voting registration might have already closed. This is not a Government who respect electoral integrity. This is a Government committed to power by any means, which means discarding voters who are unlikely to vote Conservative.
The statutory instrument claims to be about ensuring the integrity of the electoral system. In the explanatory documents that accompany the SI, the Government talk about extending post-election processes to uphold electoral integrity, but they have not scratched the surface when it comes to safeguarding the integrity of the electoral system.
Electoral integrity is not just about fulfilling administrative processes and investigating potential breaches of the law, which the Minister spoke about during one of his explanations to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean; it is about ensuring that every eligible person is able to vote. However, we know that the Government have engaged in voter suppression. Perhaps they believe that those struggling at the margins of society are less likely to register to vote, and if they did vote, would be less likely to vote for a Government whose austerity policies have had such a damaging effect on the public services that such people rely on more than most, cutting welfare benefits to the most vulnerable in our society and failing to properly invest in our NHS.
The Government have no interest in increasing voter registration because they believe it would not be politically beneficial. Similarly, they had no interest in ensuring that EU citizens were able to vote in the European Parliament elections. The Government announced only on 7 May that the UK would be taking part in the European elections, yet in order to take part in those elections, EU citizens needed to have returned their forms to their local authority by 7 May, declaring that they would not vote in another EU member state. Many people said that they were not sent the form by their local authority and received it just days before the deadline, meaning that councils then failed to process the forms on time. Others said that they were unaware of the process altogether.
The Government made no effort whatever to educate, inform or prepare eligible voters to register, because by admitting that we were going to have to take part in the European elections the Government would have offended a large part of their core support, whose voters we then saw defect to the Brexit Party Ltd. This comes at a time when improving voter registration is more important than ever. A new study published last week by the Electoral Commission shows that up to 9.4 million people are not correctly registered to vote—an increase of 1 million voters since the Commission’s previous estimate. EU citizens entitled to vote in the UK were disenfranchised as a result of the Government’s failure to reach a satisfactory Brexit deal—just one incident in a long line of repressive measures undertaken by this Government.
On closer reading of the explanatory documents for this SI, there is a reference to the Government
“continuing to work with the Law Commissions, as well as other stakeholders such as the Electoral Commission, to consider ways to streamline and clarify our electoral system in order to make elections easier to administer and therefore more resilient to errors or fraud.”
What progress have the Government made in those discussions and what plans do the Government have to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations, because at the moment, we cannot find any evidence of progress. It is widely accepted that the laws setting out how UK elections are run and regulated are not fit for the modern age—the digital age, the age of social media— with some provisions dating back to the 19th century. We on the Opposition Benches strongly agree with the Law Commission that the current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework to govern all elections, but it seems that the Government have not yet responded to that important body of work. Perhaps the Minister might clarify that.
Although we accept the reasonable and necessary provisions in today’s statutory instrument, we do not accept the Government’s mishandling of the European elections, done for their own narrow political purposes and certainly not for the good of the United Kingdom.
Census (Return Particulars and Removal Of Penalties) Bill [Lords]
Christian Matheson ExcerptsMonday 7th October 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 View all Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 7 October 2019 - (7 Oct 2019)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I speak briefly to new clause 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett)? It calls for the Minister and the Office for National Statistics to produce a report on the important issue of homelessness and particularly to ensure that people who are homeless have the opportunity to answer questions about gender identity and sexual orientation in the census. I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister just this morning detailing exactly what was asked for in new clause 3. As such, it is not our intention to press it any further, and I am grateful to the Minister for his actions in that regard.
Let me turn now to new clause 2, which was moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). As she said, it would further enhance the data gathered about minority ethnic groups in society and would help us to understand the discussion about creating a Sikh ethnic tick box. I had thought that this was a contentious proposal, but my hon. Friend’s eloquent and comprehensive contribution put that incorrect view firmly in its place. In fact, she tells me that as many as 80% to 85% of Sikhs have expressed a desire to have this tick box.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Why is the ONS ignoring the legal status of the Sikhs as an ethnic group and continuing to discriminate against them by refusing to include a tick box despite evidence of cross-party support?
Christian Matheson
It is Labour’s hope that the ONS will listen to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, and I will deal with that in a moment.
The campaign for an ethnic tick box turns on the recognition of Sikhs as an ethnic community by law, and many in the Sikh community feel that individuals should be able to identify as ethnically Sikh in the next census to ensure a more accurate picture of the community. The primary concern, as my hon. Friend stated, is that public bodies do not currently have enough information about Sikhs. I found the homelessness figures to be shocking and was unaware of the situation. More data would help inform the approach of the education, health, local government and business sectors towards the Sikh community. It is important to target services effectively, so data about such minority groups is vital because underreporting could allow discrimination to go unnoticed.
Labour fully supports the campaign by my hon. Friend and the all-party parliamentary group, which has been tireless and persuasive in pressing for a change so that the census includes a section on ethnic identity, with an option to choose being a Sikh. Indeed, to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), I believe that there is not only legal precedent in this matter, but a pending court case that will seek a judicial review of the ONS’s decision.
However, in conversations with the Minister outside the Chamber, he convinced me that this particular Bill might not be the appropriate vehicle for that matter to be addressed, so I ask him to address that concern in his contribution. I understand that today’s Bill is concerned only with the section of the census relating to sexuality and gender identity. Will the Minister explain how the way in which new clause 2 is worded may cause difficulty for that section? Will he also address the view presented by the ONS that questions on gender, identity and sexual orientation may not be included if new clause 2 is passed at this stage?
I hope that the ONS listens carefully to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, because the discussions around having a Sikh tick box within the overall question on ethnicity may have been going on for 20 years and will not go away anytime soon. The sooner we can resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the Sikh community, the sooner we can get things right.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said that he would not press Labour’s new clause 3. I am glad that the Labour Front-Bench team found the letter of interest and that it answered their concerns. From conversations with the ONS, I know that it is keen to ensure that everyone is counted in terms of the homeless community, that outreach work is done and that special measures are put in place to try to ensure as many people as possible fill in the census form. The Labour Front Bench raised the particular issue of those in the LGBT community who may be affected by homelessness in a different way and have a fear of it that differs from the rest of the community. A very worthwhile issue was brought up. I was therefore only too happy to send the letter, rather than wait until tonight. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses if Members want to consult the Government’s comments.
Turning to the substance of the debate, new clause 2 was passionately moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and it confirms the importance of ensuring that the 2021 census provides detailed information on our society, and especially the Sikh community. The Government will be guided by the advice and recommendations of the Office for National Statistics, which has advised that the new clause’s effect can be achieved through analysis of information collected under its existing proposals for the 2021 census.
Most importantly, the new clause is potentially damaging to the integrity of the census and threatens the inclusion of a question on gender identity, which would be counter to the whole aim of this Bill. For clarity, the new clause would not make any changes to the proposals for a question on sexual orientation; it would make changes only to the question on gender identity. Under the ONS’s existing proposals for the 2021 census, it will already be possible to produce statistical information about gender identity within different ethnic and religious groups.
As in previous censuses, there will continue to be separate questions on ethnicity and religion, and the data from the ethnicity, religion and gender identity questions can be analysed to provide detailed information on gender identity across different cross-sections of the population.
Christian Matheson
We learn something new about procedure every day in the House—and I say that having been here for four and a half years.
I return the Minister’s compliments. He has worked openly with me and my colleagues on this important piece of legislation, which represents a positive step forward for LGBT+ rights in the UK. The Opposition proudly support the Bill, building on a long Labour party legacy of defending minorities and fighting for equality. As the Minister says, it will provide for voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity to be asked in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland censuses.
Consideration of the Bill has seen Members make welcome points about the recognition of minority and ethnic groups. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her continued and tireless promotion of the questions we have discussed about the inclusion of Sikhs in the census.
It is vital that the Bill is passed and that work begins promptly on consulting a wide range of stakeholders across the community. Particularly at a time when the LGBT+ community continues to face widespread abuse, the inclusion of the tick boxes in the census is significant both practically and in principle. I should like to pay tribute to the work of Dr Laurence Cooley, the Economic and Social Research Council research leader, and lecturer in the School of Government and Society at the University of Birmingham. His research, which was published by the London School of Economics, outlines the dangers of an under-count of the LGBT population and the detrimental impact that that could have on the fight for full LGBT equality. On Second Reading, I cited some of Dr Cooley’s work without giving him the necessary credit, simply because that was knocked out for some reason from one iteration of the speech to the next. I apologise to him, and thank him for the gracious way in which he let me know that I was citing his work. Academics earn their living by informing public policy and by producing research that informs other work, and I am pleased to pay tribute to him.
The Minister has kept my colleagues and me informed about progress ensuring the participation of homeless people in the census. I pay tribute to him again for the letter that he has sent the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), tonight, and which he is going to put in the House of Commons Library. Hopefully, we will meet staff and officials from the Office for National Statistics to discuss their work with charities and outreach programmes. We have seen reports that a record number of homeless people died last year—the biggest increase in deaths since reporting began.
LGBT+ homeless people warrant particular attention in this discussion, not least given the shocking statistic that up to 24% of the youth homeless population are from the LGBT+ community. Clearly, we are far from solving the issue of LGBT+ discrimination, but I hope that measures included in the Bill will give us the statistics and therefore the tools to help us solve that.
We still have a long way to go. The abuse suffered by LGBT individuals across society is shocking. Indeed, any abuse is shocking, but I hope that as the Bill becomes law and we prepare for the census we will be able to reflect better the society that we seek to represent, and that the mirror that we hold up gives us an accurate representation. I support Third Reading of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I pause in case anyone has an inspirational contribution to make. [Interruption.] No.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed without amendment.
Brexit Negotiations
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister not accept that a customs post that is sited 20 miles away from a border still represents a hard border and therefore goes against the Good Friday agreement? Why is he willing to prioritise Brexit against the Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
I should remind the hon. Gentleman that there has been a fiscal border between the UK and Ireland for many years. Customs checks do not mean customs posts or infrastructure of any kind, as I am sure he appreciates, but if he does not, I am more than happy to share with him our thinking and to explain how it can be done.
Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for taking part in this all too brief debate, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). It is an honour that the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, is a Member of this House and sits on the same Benches as I do.
The issues discussed in today’s debate could not be more important, and I welcome Mr Speaker’s guidance today that we should moderate our behaviour, although civility should never be used as a mask to prevent the seeking of the truth or the holding of the Government to account. At a time when the country and the House are deeply divided and the spotlight shines on politicians like never before, it is vital that we reaffirm our commitment to the principles of democracy and remind ourselves of the rights of the electorate and our duties to them as their representatives.
I only ever feel great pride in representing the people of the City of Chester in this place, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) is right to say that most hon. Members—in fact, I would say almost all hon. Members—are here with the best of motives for their constituents.
Why have the Government chosen today to discuss the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate? Is it because they respect these crucial principles and rights? I think not. Democracy is not just about elections; it is about respecting the institutions that underpin our democracy. The Attorney General’s pantomime bombast in denouncing this Parliament yesterday will no doubt have the effect he intends, which is to damage people’s faith in democracy, yet the Government had the nerve to call a debate today about the principles of the very democracy they seek to undermine.
Let me be clear to the Attorney General and this House: this Parliament was elected in 2017 because the Conservative party tried to cut and run by calling a snap general election. This Parliament accurately reflects the divisions in the country on Brexit, and it is doing the job it was returned to do—my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood referenced that point.
Although the Minister referred in his opening speech to the Labour and Conservative manifestos, which both mentioned respecting the result of the referendum, I remind him that neither said we would leave without a deal. That is what the Brexit fundamentalists controlling the Conservative party are now pushing for.
Democracy is about respecting the rules of the game, and we know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, that the leave campaign broke the rules during the referendum on such things as data transfer and spending, as well as being untruthful to the electorate. We still do not know where the money channelled to the leave campaign via the Democratic Unionist party came from.
Why is that important? As my hon. Friend reminded the House, it is because the same people who broke the rules when running the leave campaign are now in charge of this Government, whether it is Dominic Cummings, whose commitment to democracy is such that he has been found in contempt of Parliament, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who continues to dodge my hon. Friend’s questions about what he knew and when about the Vote Leave funding misdemeanours. This does not appear to be a Government who are committed democracy. More, it is a Government who are committed to power by any means––a Government who believe that the rules of democracy do not apply to them.
My hon. Friends on the Government Benches—decent Conservatives whom I do consider to be friends—must be aghast at what has happened over the last couple of days in the name of their party. They must reel their leader back in.
The Supreme Court found that the Prorogation was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Although the Supreme Court’s judgment was utterly devastating, it provides a legal opinion on a truth with which we and the rest of the country are now already familiar. The truth is that the Prime Minister has no respect for the law, no respect for democracy and no respect for the electorate. His whole career as a journalist and as a politician has been defined by an arrogance that leads him to think he can disregard everything and get away with anything.
Like the previous Government, the current one is defined by their total lack of respect for this House and for the public. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), speaking on behalf of the SNP, mentioned not getting enough Opposition days and how Opposition day votes are ignored. This morning, we heard the Father of the House and others raise concerns that the Government are operating a deliberate strategy of division and inflaming tensions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to in an earlier intervention, quoting a Government spokesman.
The Government operate with a secrecy and evasion that betray utter contempt for the electorate and for democracy. They have tried to keep this House in the dark. If it were not for this House demanding that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publish the now notorious Yellowhammer papers, we would still be relying on leaked excerpts in the press and rumours around Whitehall. At least now we know, in the Government’s own words, just how disastrous a no-deal Brexit would be for this country. Due to the lack of time, we will not be able to go into the detail of the Yellowhammer papers, but it is enough to say that there are few more disgraceful episodes in our country’s recent history than a Tory Government willing to countenance food, fuel and medicine shortages just to appease a few no-deal obsessives in their own party and the Brexit party.
I suspect that the details of the Yellowhammer papers will not be mentioned in the Government’s Get Ready for Brexit scheme, which appears to me and many others to be the most expensive party political advertising scheme this country has ever seen. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary to see if he shares my opinion and to seek clarification whether the campaign has breached the rules that prohibit the Government from using public funds for party political purposes.
We will not allow a no-deal Brexit to go through, but let me be clear: once no deal is off the table, we will use every power at our disposal to secure a general election, and when it comes we will be ready for it. The public will be ready for it, too: after a decade of Tory austerity, the electorate is crying out for real change and we are ready to deliver it. We will not, however, fall into the trap that the Conservatives are setting us of giving them the opportunity to force through a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of this House and in the face of the democracy that this House has decided.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)
Christian Matheson Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I will be extremely brief, Mr Speaker, as I came to the debate with no intention of speaking. I just want to make the point that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) talks about “secrets” and “poison”. We are naming nine individuals here, some of whom have never worked for the Government before, and some of whom have been working as special advisers for only a week or 10 days. Bluntly, this whole debate offends my sense of fairness. We have a long tradition that people are innocent until proven guilty, yet the hon. and learned Lady assumes instant guilt on the part of these people. We all know that there are probably two names that she would love to flush out, but there are other individuals listed here. Members should just think about this, because these are junior people who have not worked for the Government for very long.
Mr Paterson
No, I will not give way.
There are significant figures who could have been chosen, such as the Cabinet Secretary, or learned counsel who advise the Government—Treasury counsel and people like that. I received a very unsatisfactory answer earlier when I asked what criteria the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) had applied for naming these people. Before this witch hunt atmosphere continues, would Opposition Members like to consider that they are talking about nine relatively junior members assisting the Government? There are two names that we know they would very much like to flush out, but can we just think of the impact on these people of having their private emails and phone messages to family and friends inspected?
Who is the omniscient person—this great fount of wisdom—who will judge whether those messages are pertinent to the motion. Before Members vote for the motion, I would like them to consider who that person will be. Who will be the chairman of the committee of public safety who will make those decisions?
Are those Members prepared to put their private communications on the record? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has had many communications with senior members of the European Commission. Only this afternoon, Mr Guy Verhofstadt gave a great paean of praise to you, Mr Speaker—he is going to welcome you to the European Parliament—but I very much doubt that you will make available to us your private communications with him.
You asked me to be brief, Mr Speaker, and I will be. Could we please just recognise that this motion is invidious and unfair? It chooses nine names arbitrarily. If people were really on a fishing expedition, they could have gone wider and gone for more senior figures. Of course, the person they are really after is the Prime Minister, and he does come to this House, and there will be many opportunities to ask him the questions, because ultimately he is the one they should be after.
Michael Gove
No, no.
It would, for the first time, say that the House of Commons, by a simple majority vote, can say that any individual’s communications should be rendered transparent. Do Members realise what they are doing? No criminal offence is alleged. The sole purpose of this is to determine what may or may not have been the private opinion of civil servants and special advisers. The idea that, in order to discern exactly what they thought, we will trample over data protection law, ECHR rights and the principle of safe space is an unprecedented example of those who claim to revere—
