All 3 contributions to the Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 (Ministerial Extracts Only)

Read Full Bill Debate Texts

Fri 23rd Feb 2018
Overseas Electors Bill
Commons Chamber

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tue 16th Oct 2018
Overseas Electors Bill: Money
Commons Chamber

Money resolution: House of Commons
Fri 22nd Mar 2019
Overseas Electors Bill
Commons Chamber

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons

Overseas Electors Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Read Full debate
2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018

(6 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text

This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 passage through Parliament.

In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.

This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Chloe Smith Portrait The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on introducing the Bill and doing so much work to bring it to this point. I hope that it will command the cross-party support that it deserves, alongside the firm support of the Government for my hon. Friend and his work.

Jo Stevens Portrait Jo Stevens
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will not. I need to continue helping the Bill on its path, and a very important Bill is coming next, which I wish to have the respect that it deserves.

In brief, British citizens who live overseas can find themselves abruptly disenfranchised after they have lived abroad for 15 years. That happens even when they still feel closely connected to our country and should have every right to take part in elections that can affect them like they affect any other citizen. To many, that is a terrible injustice.

The changes have the Government’s support and are part of a wider ambition to strengthen our democracy by ensuring that every voice within it can be heard. Under existing laws, British expats are estimated to have among the lowest levels of voter registration of any group—only about 20% of eligible expats registered to vote for the June 2017 general election. We think that figure is too low, and we hope that more people will be encouraged to register by our proceedings today.

We have already introduced online electoral registration, which, contrary to some negative points raised during the debate, makes it easier for people overseas—and indeed, in this country—to register to vote. We are interested in making it easier for people to vote and encouraging them to do so. Participation in our democracy is a fundamental part of being British, no matter how far someone has travelled from the UK. Since the House last discussed this topic it has become easier for someone to stay in touch with their home country, whether through cheap flights, the internet, or the soft power that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire began the debate by talking about.

Soft power is important to this country, and we should be welcoming to our citizens around the world. Mr Harry Shindler is foremost among them, and I am delighted to have heard his case put so eloquently in the Chamber today. Over the years Mr Shindler, and others like him, have asked with dignity and passion for this rule to be changed, and today we have the opportunity to deliver that change for them.

--- Later in debate ---
Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will not give way; it is important that we finish our discussions on this Bill and move on to the Bill that follows it.

I am proud to do my small part on behalf of the Government to welcome the Bill and give it our support. It will allow campaigners who feel an abrupt sense of injustice when they are disenfranchised after 15 years to continue to contribute, not only in their interests, as represented by the Government of the country that they love—that point was put well by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—but to help promote Britain, this great country, around the world.

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Read Full debate
Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018

(5 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 15 October 2018 - (16 Oct 2018)

This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 passage through Parliament.

In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.

This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Chloe Smith Portrait The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move,

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

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

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

Chris Skidmore Portrait Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

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

Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

Chris Skidmore Portrait Chris Skidmore
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Alex Chalk Portrait Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Stewart Malcolm McDonald Portrait Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Roger Gale Portrait Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

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

Robert Syms Portrait Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think the hon. Gentleman actually knew the answer.

--- Later in debate ---
Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

Bambos Charalambous Portrait Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Mike Amesbury Portrait Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

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

Bob Stewart Portrait Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Susan Elan Jones Portrait Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

Hugh Gaffney Portrait Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Chloe Smith Portrait Chloe Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---
16:59

Division 241

Ayes: 259


Labour: 222
Scottish National Party: 28
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 3
Green Party: 1

Noes: 296


Conservative: 286
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 1

Main Question put.
--- Later in debate ---
17:15

Division 242

Ayes: 308


Conservative: 285
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Independent: 2

Noes: 260


Labour: 221
Scottish National Party: 29
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 4
Green Party: 1

Resolved,

Overseas Electors Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Read Full debate
3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019

(5 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 March 2019 - (22 Mar 2019)

This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Overseas Electors Bill 2017-19 passage through Parliament.

In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.

This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Christian Matheson Portrait Christian Matheson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I rise to address the House for the first time in today’s sitting. May I start by paying tribute to my good friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)? He has sat patiently through this and many other sittings, and I know how very keen he is to see this Bill progress on to the statute book. If it does not do so, that will not be because of any lack of effort on his part. I pay tribute to him for the decent diligence that he has put into the Bill. The tribute I pay him is heartfelt and genuine, and I wish him well.

Chloe Smith Portrait The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

May I thank the hon. Gentleman as well for the hours he has put into this Bill in Committee, and will he allow me to join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and all those who have campaigned for this change with passion and dignity?

May I take a moment to confirm that the Government remain committed to scrapping the time cap? This remains a manifesto commitment for the Government to fulfil, and we will return to update the House in due course on our steps to do so.

Christian Matheson Portrait Christian Matheson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. We have concerns about certain areas in the Bill. When the legislation is brought back, in whatever form it comes back, we will continue to debate those concerns and scrutinise the Bill, recognising that the Government remain committed to bringing in this change.

Listening this morning—and this afternoon—to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I was reminded that we should always take care about everything we say in Committee, because somebody somewhere will actually read the speeches that we make. I am rather gladdened and encouraged that a hon. Member of such diligence and such attention to detail as the hon. Gentleman has read much of what I said in Committee—and, indeed, taken it on, because, as he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), a lot of the new clauses he has tabled were ones that were first floated by me and my hon. Friends in Committee.