Televised Election Debates

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Chloe Smith

Monday 7th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith]

I hope that my hon. Friend’s flattery of me extends to knowing that I am a friend of Parliament, and I look forward to Parliament having the opportunity to have that debate when the time comes. I will make no further comment on what should be the passage, or otherwise, of that Bill. Today, what I am trying to do—which I hope is welcome—is go into some of the arguments that reasonably pertain to the proposal in front of us. The least courtesy we should give to any petition is to give it a proper going over, debating the arguments that we think relate to it.

I call the House’s attention to the fact that the proposal would require primary legislation, which is not two a penny. What we choose to do through primary legislation requires some prioritisation, and that is the part of the electoral law framework that would have to be looked at if we wanted to do this. The hon. Member for Cardiff West has already made the point that election law is complex. It is thought by many to be fragmented and unwieldy, and it absolutely the case that it is aged. He is right to say that parts of election law relate to the 19th century. As I have said, I am not convinced that we should add another piece that relates, arguably, to the 20th century, not to mention the 21st. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that election law is a complicated matter, but I do not yet see the argument for adding this proposal to it through primary legislation.

Another aspect of what it means to put something into law has already been referred to, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. I share his concern that forcing somebody to attend a debate—effectively, making somebody a criminal for not taking part in a debate—is unlikely to be a priority for law enforcement. The hon. Member for Cardiff West suggests that he does not want to add any penalties to the proposal, but he still wants to see it in law. I do not think that is a very strong position: if we do not wish to criminalise somebody for something, we do not put it into law. If a proposal stands on its own because it is reasonable and virtuous, that is fine, but in this case debates happen already and need not be made mandatory. We put something in law if we want the hon. Gentleman’s chief constable, and my chief constable, to have to spend their time thinking about it. I am not convinced that turning members of political parties into criminals for not participating in a television debate, or indeed in any other campaigning activity, is the right thing to do.

We also ought to think about the electorate. If participation in the debate is compulsory, is watching it going to be compulsory as well?

[Kevin Brennan]

indicated dissent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Chloe Smith

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Chloe Smith

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady gives us yet another example of how people have suffered in this terrible saga, over time. I hope that her constituent’s experience will be reflected in the terms of reference. I urge the hon. Lady and all Members to encourage their constituents to complete the form, which is extremely easily accessible on the inquiry website, to ensure that their voices are properly heard. The inquiry can then proceed to do its full job.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

My constituent, Sue Sparkes, wrote to me and described as “crass” and “insensitive” the letter that made the comparison with Grenfell. Will the Minister do two things today? First, she has rightly rowed back from that position, but will she undertake to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) before the Cabinet Office issues letters of that kind in future? Secondly, will she apologise for the hurt caused by that letter?

[Chloe Smith]

I think the hon. Gentleman would have heard me do so earlier, but I am happy to say again that I am sorry for the concern caused by that letter. In case he missed it, I shall repeat the explanation that I gave a little while ago. My officials in the Cabinet Office were carrying out what is actually the normal legal position for inquiries, which is that Minister would decide by exception whether to provide funding for legal assistance in this preliminary period. I refer to section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminder that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has done so much work here. I am happy to meet her at any time to discuss the issues at hand in a way that is appropriate around the work of the inquiry.