Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

4. What recent progress he has made on a policy on recall of hon. Members.

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

The Government have confirmed that we remain committed to establishing a recall mechanism. We are now taking proper time to consider the relevant Select Committee’s recommendations.

[Steve McCabe]

I was rather thrown by that reply. What I want to know is whether recall will commence after allegations are well established and the scandal is public, or at the point when there is an admission or finding of guilt. If the latter, how does that differ substantially from what already happens?

[Miss Smith]

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows—if not and if confusion persists, I am happy to take it up with him outside the Chamber—the coalition put forward a set of proposals that included a double set of conditions: first, that the Member should have been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing; and secondly, that at least 10% of constituents should have signed a petition calling for the recall. In our proposals, the first of those conditions contained two triggers. It is now for the House and the Government to work together to make sure that that works. We must be sure not to trespass on the House’s exclusive cognisance—I think the hon. Gentleman knows that and of course you do, Mr Speaker —and I look forward to ensuring that the process is transparent, robust and fair.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Given that this is the one meaningful political reform the coalition is likely to be able to deliver, please will the Minister explain the delay? It is a simple matter and I have done the work for her by producing a Bill, which is sitting there in the books. Can she guarantee that the reform will go through before the next election?

[Miss Smith]

Like you, Mr Speaker, I am a great respecter of Parliament, so I suspect that I should not guarantee anything, but my intention is to bring forward proposals on which I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and all others who take an interest. As I said, the process ought to be transparent, robust and fair, and I look forward to making sure that it meets that quality mark.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the most effective ways of ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.

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

The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration. We have published detailed research, which has informed our plans to use data-matching, targeted engagement with under-registered groups, and new technology to modernise the system as we go into individual electoral registration, to make it as convenient as possible for people to register to vote.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Wigan has had great success in increasing the number of people registered to vote. However, there are still many more people recorded in the census than in the comparable electoral register. Does the Minister therefore agree that drawing the parliamentary boundaries on the basis of census data is a much fairer way of achieving equal constituencies?

[Miss Smith]

In short, the census data come out only once every 10 years, which is rather a drawback. There are a number of other differences as well, which suggests that the electoral register is a better source to use.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that only 23,000 out of 4.4 million British citizens living abroad are registered to vote. This is a huge disfranchisement of British citizens. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the committee that may be set up as a result of discussions in the other place on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a great mismatch between the number eligible to vote and the number who are registered to vote. We all have a duty to seek to get those numbers up, as we do in the context of any category of voter. I look to all the organisations involved in that effort, including the Electoral Commission, political parties and many more, to seek to encourage registration to vote both here and overseas. My hon. Friend will know well that noble Lords in the other place are taking a great interest in this, and I wish a cross-party inquiry all positive results.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Recently an independent watchdog body expressed concern about the accuracy and completeness of the register in Northern Ireland, 20% of which could be inaccurate. As this has serious implications for our democracy, has the Minister been in contact with the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland to find out how that happened and what lessons can therefore be learned concerning the register here?

[Miss Smith]

There are indeed many helpful lessons to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission notes that many of the key lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the principles included in what is now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Government have said that the official date for the implementation of individual electoral registration is to be December 2016, yet they have also said that they want to bring forward IER by one year. Why are the Government facing both ways on the issue?

[Miss Smith]

It is clear from comments that I have made at the Dispatch Box and that our noble Friends have made in another place that the Government’s implementation plan remains firmly committed to 2015 as the date for transition to an IER-only register. Amendments made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament provide a safeguard that extends the final point for transition to an IER-only register to December 2016. Those amendments, however, do not alter our aim to deliver that register in December 2015. They simply add a safeguard so that Parliament has a say, but I do not expect Parliament to have to make that call because I expect our transition plan to be robust.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

6. What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are up to 2015.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

8. What his policy is on the cyber-security partnership.

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

On 25 January, the Foreign Secretary signed the World Economic Forum’s new set of principles on cyber-resilience. The UK was the first country to join that cyber-security partnership, alongside more than 70 companies and Government bodies across 15 sectors and 25 countries. That is an important step in demonstrating our leadership role on the international stage in combating cyber-threats.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Has she seen the recent report by Lancaster university, which is a centre of excellence in cyber-security and she is more than welcome to visit? The report highlighted the lack of investment by so many small businesses in even the simplest systems to protect their IT systems.

[Miss Smith]

I very much welcome Lancaster university’s report, which I have seen. It does show the university’s place as an academic centre of excellence for cyber-security. That research gives us valuable insights into how business is responding. I understand that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be supporting a further small and medium-sized enterprise conference with Lancaster university. The Government are bringing forward a cross-government cyber-security awareness campaign, which is aimed at SMEs. I ought to quote from the report, because I agree with its statement that small businesses should be able to

“embrace technology and prosper without exposing themselves to unwanted business risks.”

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Cyber-security should be a growth area for UK industry. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what she is doing to help promote cyber-security for the UK industrial sector?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. When we published the cyber-security strategy we made it clear that there are important opportunities for UK businesses. Our country has long-standing expertise in cyber-security, which makes us well placed to capitalise on the commercial opportunities on offer, both domestically and overseas. I can confirm to him that we have put in place measures to help promote UK products abroad, particularly through setting up a cyber-growth partnership.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

If only the Minister’s warm words on international partnerships were matched by her Government’s actions. In October, the Home Secretary announced that the UK would opt out of cross-border co-operation on tackling crime—cybercrime is, of course, predominantly cross-border in nature. Will the Minister confirm that position? Specifically, will we be part of the new European cybercrime centre, or are her Government more obsessed with damaging Europe than strengthening our cyber-security?

[Miss Smith]

First, I welcome the hon. Lady to her place in the Opposition Front-Bench team, although I hope that the Labour party has updated its website, as I do not believe its cyber-skills showed her in her correct place at the time she asked that question. Of course, I can offer my reassurance that the UK Government are doing all they can on tackling cybercrime, where there is much to be done. There is also much to be done in Europe.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

In developing the cyber-security strategy, will the Minister consider forming a civilian cyber-security reserve, so that people working in the IT security sector can back-fill those positions that are very specialist and where the work perhaps cannot be carried out by the Ministry of Defence?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes correct points about the need to ensure that we have robust skills across both the public and private sectors in respect of cyber-security. There is much to do to build our country’s capability. He will know that the MOD is taking forward the development of a cyber-reserve, and he makes sensible points about a civilian version.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Contracts Finder website.

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

The Prime Minister launched Contracts Finder two years ago to make Government procurement opportunities more accessible for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is precisely what that site does.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank the Minister for her reply and her letter, which I received this morning in reply to my question to her and her colleagues last September about the number of contracts with Atos. We know that the Government have about £3 billion-worth of contracts with Atos and in her answer she referred me to the Contracts Finder website, but a significant number of contracts were not on that site. Now that she has provided those details, will she tell me why the Cabinet Office does not include contracts renewed since 1 January 2011 given that they are renewed and extended by her Department?

[Miss Smith]

Of the contracts identified in response to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiries, only seven are required to be on Contracts Finder and each of them is there. We are publishing more contract opportunities and more contract information than ever before and we are seeing an increase in the amount of business going to SMEs. Contracts Finder was designed to help suppliers, particularly SMEs, to find contract opportunities, whereas the hon. Gentleman’s Government did nothing on that in 13 years.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The Minister has just referred to what happened three years ago. Has she had an opportunity to assess why small businesses were winning such a small share of Government procurement contracts when the Government came to power?

[Miss Smith]

We are absolutely serious about opening up Government business to SMEs, and it is a shame that the previous Administration appeared not to be. We have made progress: we have posted information about the opportunities, as I said in response to the previous question; we have removed bureaucratic pre-qualification processes; we have given SMEs a voice at the top table; and we have made Government more accountable through the mystery shopper service. My hon. Friend knows that it is a shame that the previous Government did not do any of those things.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

7. What estimate he has made of the potential savings to the Exchequer from the Government’s proposed reforms to civil service pensions. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

T7. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) about small and medium-sized enterprise procurement, does the Minister agree that it is not just a question of giving contracts to small firms but that it is essential that the public sector pays its bills on time?

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

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: not only are hundreds of contract opportunities being made available for SMEs, but the Government are a fair payment champion, recognised by external bodies for their behaviour, just as he said.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

T4. Research published by the Charities Aid Foundation found that one in six charities feared having to close this year, putting at risk the services on which many vulnerable people rely. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Government are taking to prevent charities from going to the wall?

Commercial Lobbyists (Registration and Code of Conduct) Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Friday 1st February 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

Absolutely, and I would not want to see the Bill go into Committee without such a definition. I would want the Government to define what a lobbyist is—perhaps the way forward is to define a lobbyist by what it is not, rather than by what it is, so that we have absolute certainty that certain organisations will be exempt from the provisions. I am sure that we will have a debate; I am sure Labour Members will want trade unions to be exempt from the register, although I would quite like them to remain on it. We might wish to give preference to and exempt some trade organisations, but we will want others to be very much part of such a register so that we have the transparency sought by the Bill.

I was glad that the consultation received more than 260 responses. Lord Wallace of Saltaire from the other place has eloquently summarised the feedback. At one point, the Government summary of replies to the consultation document states

“in effect, a lot of those consulted regard themselves as a legitimate part of the political process but regard everybody else as lobbyists”.

That is spot on, and quite often people who come to us talk in similar language. Lord Wallace said that although there is need for reform,

“there is a quite remarkable dissensus among respondents”

I was unfamiliar with the word “dissensus”, but I can work out what he means and I broadly agree with his conclusion.

I look forward to seeing the Government response to the consultation. I believe that some of the inputs to the consultation have been published, but I could not find that, so I assume the Government have not yet responded, given that the consultation was in January 2012—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) is kindly passing me a document, but I am unclear whether it is a summary of responses or the Government position. Flipping through, it seems to be the summary of responses, rather than the Government response to those responses.

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

indicated assent.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend nods and I am grateful to her. I have looked at part of those responses, although not at them all. Perhaps in her concluding remarks she will indicate when the Government will respond to the consultation as that would be helpful for the House. I would certainly find it interesting to read the Government’s response alongside the summary of responses to the Cabinet Office consultation document, “Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists”. The majority of respondents welcomed the Government’s commitment to achieve greater transparency and were supportive of a statutory register of lobby interests. However, there was a definite overlap between the responses on definition and scope; the definition presented a particular issue for many respondents and there was a widespread recognition that arriving at the right definition would be fundamental to the register’s effectiveness. The Bill completely sidesteps that issue, despite making an attempt to define lobbying.

The overarching theme that emerged from the consultation was that the proposed definition was narrow, and a number of respondents stressed that until the definition was clear, it would be difficult to determine other factors raised by the subsequent questions, especially scope. There was also considerable support for consistency in application to ensure equal treatment of all parties. In keeping with the emerging theme on definition, the predominant view expressed under the question of scope was that a wider scope was preferred but that that should not result in disproportionate burdens. That is very difficult to do; I suspect that a balancing act will be needed in relation to scope, and what is in the code and who should be subject to it.

There was general consensus among respondents that it was difficult to address the question of the information to be provided without clarity on definition and scope. The majority of respondents favoured the disclosure of financial information alongside other information. Such an approach is entirely right; it is insufficient simply to say, “You are lobbying on behalf of A, B or C.” Although I said that more information should be available, people can become bogged down by information if we are talking simply about volume over a small number of categories and they might not be able to see the bigger picture. One can imagine lobbyists listing client upon client and our then finding that they are billing some of them only a few thousand pounds, whereas they might be charging some of the bigger clients £1 million. Such information allows us to estimate the size of the work that they are doing, which then allows people to track things down. They can ask, “Why are X, Y and Z companies getting £1 million? Why are they on a £1 million retainer for this?” People would be able to examine the marketplace, see what lobbying activity they have said they have done and see press speculation. If there is any gap, people could investigate further, so that information would be very useful.

We have already discussed when the register should be updated. The idea of a formal publication quarterly could work, although we could force people to register slightly earlier and put things on the internet. The idea that we should have a quarterly written publication that is produced and pumped out to all interested parties is somewhat old-fashioned. It would be quite possible to have a rolling register on the internet. That may be more appropriate, even if it were to contain only a rolling number of names of individuals and amounts, prior to a formal publication each quarter, if indeed that were needed. In the case of some of the specific examples discussed today, it would be essential—this is more than a preference—for us to have that information on a regular basis.

We have already discussed funding, so I will not detain the House any longer on that. Interestingly, there was support for strong sanctions to apply to those on the register, so we must ask what happens when things go wrong. We have not debated that at great length, but it goes to the heart of the matter. If someone could carry on acting in the same way, there would be little point in the register. This is not a monitoring exercise. We should not feel better about ourselves just because we catch people doing wrong—or what we perceive to be wrong. That is what we legislate for; this should be about improving the quality of democracy. We need to consider the sanctions. We need to consider how we fine people and whether it is purely a matter for the lobbying registration council or whether the state should take a greater view. Are we going to say that in some cases it is a criminal offence to do certain things in respect of lobbying rather than saying that it is an offence against the lobbying registration council that will be punished internally? Are we saying that the law is sufficient at the moment? This matter is crucial and, as on the code of conduct, it will be incumbent on the Government when they publish a draft Bill to give us a copy of the documents that they are proposing, even if some of the detail is not included and even if the documents are only in draft. Without that information it will be very hard to see from the Government Bill whether it is indeed the appropriate way forward. Cross-party support would be encouraged by the publication of as much information as possible, particularly on the issue of sanctions, which has not been touched on during this debate.

I was going to go into more detail on the definition of lobbying, but I do not wish to do that now as we have covered a lot of that territory. However, I would like to caution against accepting the lobby industry’s definition of lobbying. Clearly, if the industry had been operating well, properly and transparently in the interests of democracy, we would not be here today. So it is somewhat ludicrous simply to say, “Well it is agreed by the industry” and then move forward.

Clause 4(2) exempts the activities of Members of Parliament from the definition of lobbying, and I very much welcome that. Clause 3(3) deals with the issue of passes, and I was disappointed that the words

“or former member of either House”

found their way into the Bill. I listened to the reasons that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife gave, and I think he disagrees with that provision but left it in the Bill out of courtesy to other Committees of the House that were considering it. It would be wholly inappropriate if the duties we put on a lobbyist—someone trying to lobby this current House—were less for a ex-Member of either House than for a member of the public. Someone is either a Member of Parliament or an ex-Member of Parliament, and I do not think we should blur the lines on lobbying.

I have outlined the case for caution, and I wish to discuss the arrangements in other countries. However, for the sake of the debate, before I do so I shall touch on issues in the United Kingdom. The UK has a specific problem with commercial lobbying in the House of Commons, and it relates to all-party groups. We have not discussed this matter in detail, but we have touched on it tangentially. I am sure that many of us here are members of all-party groups, which provide a strong function for the House of Commons, despite confusion among the public as to what an all-party group does and what a Select Committee does. Sometimes, these groups are sparsely attended by MPs and Lords, but are very professional operations, and sometimes at their heart are industry lobbyists.

I was once surprised in Parliament to bump into an old friend with an interest in politics, because I thought they worked in outside industry. They were not of an age at which I would have expected them to be an intern, and neither were they one of the more senior staff members. I could not see their pass, so I asked, “What brings you here?” They turned it around, and it was a blue pass. I am not sure if you are familiar with blue passes, Mr Speaker, but they are for all-party groups. This individual was paid by an external lobbying organisation and had a House of Commons pass not issued by an MP. I am not sure who issues them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join those who have contributed to today’s debate in congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing a debate on this Bill, and, as I understand it, he has another five on the Order Paper today and four last Friday, which is no mean feat. I thank the hon. Gentleman for having brought today’s proposals to the House and for allowing us to have what I think has been a very constructive debate.

Albeit from one of my ministerial colleagues, I have certainly learned a new word today—“dissensus”, which is presumably the opposite of “consensus”. I think it is a fine word and that it has a place in today’s debate—perhaps as a description of some hon. Members’ comments—but I am more interested in the opposite idea of consensus. I know we have all acknowledged how complicated the issue is and how important it is to be careful to get such legislation right.

The Government are committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the election of May 2010, the Government said in the coalition’s programme for government:

“We will regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.”

We said in our consultation document:

“The purpose of the UK register is to increase transparency by making available to the public, to decision-makers and to other interested parties authoritative and easily-accessible information about who is lobbying and for whom. This will help ensure that those seeking to influence decisions do so in a way that is open to scrutiny, improving knowledge about the process and the accountability of those involved in it.”

At this point, I pause to pay tribute to the notion of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that anybody in public office ought to be able to hold a robust conversation with anybody who comes their way. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife would agree with that.

Another important point in our consultation document is that

“the register is not intended to capture or deter a range of activity that is essential to a vibrant democracy. So, for example, the register is not intended to cover the normal interaction between constituents and their MPs. Nor should the essential flow of communication between business leaders and Government, civil figures, community organisations…and so on, be included.”

I think that helps to provide an answer to some of the many and varied points made today about the appropriate bounds of this debate.

Let me say something about transparency. The Government already release a significant amount of information—which Members and anyone else who is observing our debate can find on the website data.gov. uk.—and we have made a clear commitment to increasing the transparency of what we do and making it easier for the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. That has resulted in the quarterly publication of details of ministerial meetings and Government procurement, and a number of other items of public interest.

I acknowledge what was said by, for instance, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) about the importance of transparency and the efforts made by many Governments in that regard. In my view, the present Government publish an unprecedented amount of information about those who are met by Ministers and senior officials, but at present it is not always obvious whom those people represent. The Government therefore want a register that will bring more transparency to the lobbying process.

With that in mind, I accept that some elements of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals have merit. I think he grasps the importance of having a relatively simple register that does not impose disproportionate burdens on those who are required to comply with his Bill. The Government are also determined to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens that would prove detrimental to the United Kingdom economy. I am very mindful of the costs that may be associated with the statutory register, and I want to explore that issue fully as we develop and introduce our own proposals.

The hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of avoiding ambiguity when defining lobbying activity. That, too, is a view that I heard loud and clear in the responses to last year’s consultation. The Government are making it a priority to consider a wide range of definitions, including international definitions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), who gave us a tour d’horizon of the systems used elsewhere. The parameters of the chosen definition will be made very clear in the context of the UK lobbying industry: I intend there to be no scope for ambiguity, so that we can ensure the success and effectiveness of the register.

The hon. Gentleman also recognises that there is little appetite for a publicly funded register of lobbyists, and his proposals for a fee-based system are certainly worth considering. A range of responses to the consultation dealt with that point; they can be found in “A Summary of Responses to the Cabinet Office's Consultation Document ‘Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists’”, which has already been brandished by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East.

There are other parts of the Bill which I believe need further exploration. There is, for example, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal for the establishment of a lobbying registration council, for which he was taken to task in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I think that it is an interesting idea, but, like others, I should like to know more about the council’s membership.

The hon. Gentleman proposes that the Secretary of State should be able to decide, through secondary legislation, what level of information disclosure should be required of those who are on the register. I should like to go into the matter in more detail with the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to working with him constructively on that and other issues, including the issue of the code of practice which his Bill empowers the council to draw up. That is clearly a significant role for the council, and I should like to know how the necessary authority and expertise could be channelled in a way that would enable the code to be effective and enforceable.

I think that there is much to applaud in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, but it raises further questions which, as I know he agrees, need to be explored fully. I look forward to working collaboratively with him on those issues.

[Philip Davies]

Not too collaboratively, I hope.

[Miss Smith]

I can only assure my hon. Friend that on Fridays in the House we all seek to have debates that are to some degree collaborative.

[Mr Nuttall]

Has my hon. Friend had a chance to look at “A Summary of Responses to the Cabinet Office's Consultation Document ‘Introducing a Statutory Register of Lobbyists’”? Paragraph 95 states:

“Concerns were also raised by a large number of respondents who said they could not identify the problem that the register was aiming to solve.”

[Miss Smith]

That takes me to exactly the points to which I want to return. As I have said, the Government are committed to the establishment of a statutory register of lobbyists, which we think would be an important step towards making politics more transparent. I certainly think it important to open up politics and make it more accessible to everyone. I agree with my hon. Friend that lobbying has an important function in politics, namely the putting forward of legitimate views when they are held. That helps in the development of better legislation. However, we need to address the question that he raises: what is the gap that needs to be filled in this case?

In our consultation on introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, various parties, organisations, individuals and businesses told us what the register should look like and what the gap is. That information is helping the Government reach conclusions on some very tricky questions, such as how we should define “lobbyist” and “lobbying”, what sort of information should be held on the register, and what penalties should be imposed on those who do not register. The hon. Gentleman has made various suggestions, which I want to take into account alongside those received from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

Although the Government have made strides in increasing the transparency of what we do, thus making it easier for the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account, there is one important gap. Our consultation document states that

“under the current system, when Ministers meet lobbying firms it is not transparent on whose behalf they are lobbying”,

and that is the gap we should address through this sort of legislation.

The Government consultation received a large response, showing just how important the issue is to the public and why we are working so hard to get our proposals right. Following the consultation, we are currently taking stock. The evidence from the consultation and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee report will allow us to develop the statutory register in a way that increases transparency while ensuring equal treatment of all parties, and without placing disproportionate burdens on those affected.

The Government are committed to introducing a statutory register of lobbyists.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the Minister intend to publish the revised proposals before the House rises at the end of the Session or, failing that, before the summer recess?

[Miss Smith]

As I have said, we are currently taking stock. It is important to take time to get these proposals right. This remains a coalition commitment, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to move it forward.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might come back with that response. However, the difficulty with the regency legislation is that there is more than one Act. There have been a number of amending Acts. He referred to the 1937 Act, but since then there have been what some people have referred to as ad hoc departures from that legislation. In fact, the Act talks about the best person succeeding to the throne, rather than the next in line. What on earth does that mean? How do we define the “best person”? This underlines the point that the legislation will inevitably have unintended consequences that will have to be looked at in detail, with a cool head, over a reasonable period of time.

Nevertheless, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon. We have focused on the tightly defined legislation before us, but Members have also rightly taken the opportunity to extend the debate. We have now begun to open the new chapter of constitutional debate that we need to have in this country. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press the new clause to a vote.

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

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today for their erudite and comprehensive contributions. I join the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in being a fan of middle English and old English; if he would like to join me in the Tea Room some time, I am sure that we could discuss that.

Through amendments 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to ensure that a child of the Roman Catholic faith may later convert to the Protestant faith and succeed to the throne. Let me first deal with the Government’s understanding of the Act of Settlement, which we share with him. The law in this area is certainly not easy, but on balance, we agree with his interpretation of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights as meaning that a Roman Catholic may not convert to the Protestant faith and then succeed to the throne. This is, however, an aspect of our constitution that we do not think has ever been tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) noted that such circumstances would be unlikely to arise within our lifetimes. The bar appears to be on anyone who has ever “professed” the Roman Catholic faith, or held communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Once disqualified, they are excluded for ever from succeeding to the throne.

I should like to make a few points on amendments 1 and 2 before I turn to new clause 1. My first point relates to scope. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, the scope of the Bill is narrow. I appreciate that there are reasons to criticise the law as it stands, but the amendments stray into new territory and go beyond the limited aims of the Bill. In passing, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). We missed him in the earlier debates last week, but he enlivened us today when he came as close as anyone has done in the debate to asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If my amendments were not within the scope, Mr Speaker would surely not have selected them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is absolutely correct. That clarification was right; the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.

[Miss Smith]

I have no intention of disputing your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that was not the intention of my comments. I merely wanted to say that this Bill has never had the intention of addressing the religion of the monarch or indeed of those in the line of succession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Although I am sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) in tabling the new clause and amendments, I believe that the most powerful argument for not accepting them is the one that the Minister has just set out: we should not seek to jeopardise the Bill’s moves towards equality by amending it beyond the agreement that has already been reached. I hope, however, that she and the Government will continue to have discussions with the other realms so that if further equalities can be reached, we do not abandon the possibility of having them.

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I can reassure him and all Members that we are in working contact with the other realms, but we do not expect radical departures from the scope in any particular realm.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in this particular case, what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just shown is that what has been completely settled and without question can now be open to challenge? Does she believe that this is a sensible way to proceed when overturning 1,000 years of British history?

[Miss Smith]

I deeply respect my right hon. Friend’s intervention and, indeed, his contributions to the debates on this topic. Many aspects of the law relevant to this area are not changed by the Bill, however, and I would like to answer my right hon. Friend’s intervention by saying that, to the extent that there are difficulties, they already exist. I stated clearly last week that key elements of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights stay standing, and I reiterate that today. I do not see this Bill as creating further constitutional crises than could be wrought out of the existing law.

For the record, before moving on to my second argument about the two amendments, let me state again that the Government are absolutely committed to the Church of England as the established Church, with the sovereign as its Supreme Governor. We consider that the relationship between Church and state in England is an important part of the constitutional framework. It has evolved over centuries and the Government have no intention of legislating to disestablish the Church of England. It is important to state that. The Government’s view is that allowing a person of the Roman Catholic faith to accede to the throne would clearly be incompatible with the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England.

Let me move on to my second argument and address the substance of the two amendments. I suggest that, if they were made, they would add greater uncertainty to the line of succession. For example, let us consider someone who is brought up as the heir to the throne and is clearly in preparation for that vocation over their lifetime. In the Government’s view, it would make that person’s position, and the position of their immediate family, very difficult, if they could be superseded at any stage by someone who converted from Roman Catholicism to the Protestant faith. By extension, that could also raise the prospect of the reigning monarch being subsequently supplanted by someone who was theoretically higher in the line of succession on that latter person’s converting from Catholicism and joining in communion with the Church of England.

I see that as a major technical problem with the two amendments. I view it as adding uncertainty and I could envisage it leading, in the words of many who have contributed to the debate, to a “constitutional crisis” which I do not see the core Bill providing for.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I understand the Minister’s argument, but it does not address the fact that, throughout the discussion, it has been clear that we are talking about children who are going to be brought up in mixed marriages. It is likely that, in those circumstances, before the child is of the age to decide whether they want to succeed to the throne, they will have experienced both Churches and could make a perfectly free choice—unconnected with the throne—for one or the other. That choice would determine their eligibility long before they were 18 or 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I recognise the measured point that my right hon. Friend makes. The difficulty or tension here that we do not have the time or scope to go into with regard to this Bill, or indeed as mere parliamentarians as opposed to theologians, is the nature of free will, and the free will of the child. I want to return us to the point that the Bill does not seek to change the entirety of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights, for reasons that we went through at some length last week and a little earlier today,. I put the Government’s point: the Bill is narrow in scope and does not seek to enter into the theology of the faiths in question; it seeks instead to amend a unique form of discrimination that is particularly narrow.

[Mr Leigh]

I do not understand the Minister’s point—that if the two amendments were passed, it could result in a constitutional crisis or somebody supplanting somebody else. If she does not mind my saying so, this seems like an argument invented by civil servants. It is over-complicating the situation, when the fact remains that under this Bill the eldest daughter or son, whoever comes first, is going to succeed. All my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is doing through the amendments is to prevent them from being disbarred from the throne because of something that might have happened in their childhood. That is what he is saying: it is very clear; it is not very complicated.

[Miss Smith]

As I understand the amendments tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, they would technically open the opportunity for a person to convert and provide for that person not to be “for ever” barred. I think it is possible for that to allow confusion over the very same point, including after the moment of succession. I can see that possibility arising through my hon. Friend’s amendments. I regret that that is the case, but I see it as a problem, and I humbly make that argument to the House.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister is throwing up a plot line here that even Jeffrey Archer would not try to contrive in suggesting that by converting, someone is somehow going to leapfrog over somebody else in the line of succession. How would that happen?

[Miss Smith]

I am trying to describe a situation where an older child—the Bill affects nothing to do with the age of succession—could, due to their faith, initially be out of the line of succession but later change their faith, as envisaged by the amendments, thereby changing the realities of the succession.

[Mark Durkan]

If the Minister will forgive me for saying it, this is now sounding a little like “There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza”! She is relying on the fact that an older brother or sister might be debarred because of their faith, but the point of the amendments is to end the situation of someone being debarred because they happen to be of a particular faith at any stage in their lives.

[Miss Smith]

During this debate many hon. Members have asked the Government to take account of unintended consequences, and I humbly suggest that I am pointing out an unintended consequence of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.

We have heard several mentions in the debate of the support afforded to the Bill by the Archbishop of Westminster, who welcomed

“the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”.

Importantly, he also recognised the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society. I balance that against the Church of England’s comments, which are likewise supportive. Given that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been extremely supportive of the changes, I believe that we have found an appropriate balance in the Bill. I do not think there is an appetite in the country at large to change or damage the position of the established Church in this country.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister accept the reality of change in this extremely complex constitutional area? Whatever the moral arguments in favour of change, they must nevertheless be matched to the practicalities of constitutional change and achieving the necessary consensus to bring about that change.

[Miss Smith]

I welcome the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who brings me back to the point that I do not believe there is a consensus among the public for any radical divergence from the traditional arrangements for the established Church in this country.

In new clause 1, my hon. Friend proposes a perhaps rather ingenious solution: splitting the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England from the role of sovereign, in a method akin to a regency. Such a split would represent a fundamental change to the role of the monarch in English society in relation to the established Church, and could not be considered without extensive consultation. I am delighted that the House had sufficient time to debate all the matters that were in scope last week, but new clause 1 suggests a more radical diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy. There is not public support for the proposed change, which opens up a series of extremely difficult questions about what the relationship would be between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor, and whether such arrangements could continue to support the established place of the Church of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) raised a question about how the coronation and accession oaths could be made to work in such an instance.

The Government have no intention of going further than the limited scope of the Bill as presented. The amendments and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would introduce instability and uncertainty of a type that is not welcome in the institution we are discussing, which has served the country well for generations in its temporal role and in its spiritual role as articulated. As there is neither public support for the admirably comprehensive arguments that have been made, nor appropriate space for consultation on them considering that the legislation must be taken through many other realms, I invite my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 2, leave out

‘born after 28 October 2011’

and insert ‘whenever born’.

I shall be much briefer than I was when we debated the previous amendments. From where I sit in the House, I noticed the conversations that Members were having as they went in to vote and I think that many who opposed the previous measure will be very surprised to see, when they read the papers tomorrow, what exactly they voted against.

Amendment 3 is a brief and helpful proposal to remove the specified date. Lord Armstrong has recently reminded us of how atrocious we, sadly, are in this Parliament at legislating. When we legislate in haste we often legislate in error, and what Lord Armstrong has said, having gone through the Bills passed in the 13 years of the previous Government, is that 75 went through all stages in this House and the other House, received Royal Assent and then were never implemented—they made no difference.

We have now reached the position where this Bill may well be judged as an atrocious piece of legislation, because there is no need to limit us to a date. We are dealing with a situation where the child is likely to be born—this is referred to in the Bill—in the summer, but there is no need to make a decision now. We can give ourselves time to improve the Bill and avoid the unintended consequences it contains.

I cannot see why we should not apply this provision now. If this is such a good idea—there is an almost universal approval in the House for the main proposition of getting rid of discrimination against women—why not do it immediately? Why should it apply in 40 or 60 years’ time? Why should it not apply immediately? The effect of that might be nothing at all, because those in the line of succession in the foreseeable future are predominantly male, barring problems that might occur with premature deaths, accidents and so on. However, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that there could be a female in direct line to the throne. Are we going to wait until the child that is going to be born in July reaches maturity for this beneficial legislation to come into force? If it is worth doing, it is worth doing now.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I will be equally as brief as the hon. Gentleman. I, too, understand that the effect of his amendment would be to make the gender of any person in the line of succession irrelevant when determining succession to the throne. I put it to him that the Government did not make an omission; the way we set out the Bill was a deliberate choice. His amendment would change the current line of succession. Specifically—I suspect he has this in mind—their Royal Highnesses Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and their descendants, would move below Her Royal Highness Princess Anne and her descendants. The Government do not believe it is fair or reasonable to alter the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrospective provision and there would need to be good reason for it.

Commonwealth leaders have agreed to remove the male bias in succession to the Crown for the future. For reasons we have already discussed at length, the Government view that agreement as being important to maintain, and it does not envisage the current order of succession being disturbed. Rather, when new members of the royal family are born they will enter the line of succession without there being any preference for males over females, and I know that the hon. Gentleman shares that latter principle with me.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the Minister agree that not only would it be intrinsically unfair to adopt an ex post facto aspect to the Bill by applying it retrospectively to those who have lived in the current order of succession for many years—their adult lives—but it would breach the principle of avoiding retrospective legislation in this House?

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I note that the different clauses of this Bill do carry slightly different connotations of retrospectivity. I would be happy to explain that, but we did cover some of those issues in detail in Committee. He is right to say that what is relevant in clause 1 is the legitimate expectations of those currently close to the throne in the line of succession. We do face a question about what is fair and reasonable to them. Clause 1 strikes a fair balance by providing that gender is irrelevant in this regard for persons born after the date of the agreement reached by the Commonwealth realms on 28 October 2011. That element of retrospection is justifiable.

An important practical element and effect of the measure is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession. I believe that all hon. Members know that that is an example of the point behind clause 1. It is also clear that that deals with a future occurrence, as opposed to altering the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Paul Flynn]

I am disappointed at the limit to the reforming zeal of this Government, who seem to be saying, “God, make me gender neutral—but not yet.” I know that the Minister was disappointed that I did not move my amendment in middle English, but in the spirit of what she said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

With brevity and the leave of the House, I simply want to confirm that I would be happy to expand the explanatory notes as the Bill goes to the other place. I also want to suggest that everyone in the House—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman not allow me the pleasure of simply saying, “God save the Queen”?

[Wayne David]

I have no objection at all—the Minister can say it again if she likes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned how the six people nearest in line to the throne could lose their place if the Queen did not consent to their marriage. It is important to say on the record that the explanatory notes state clearly that that would be the case; in fact, it says so in the summary on the front page. I do not think, therefore, that it is fair to say that the issue has not been referred to properly in the House—it has been referred to in the documents and in last week’s debate.

It is also important to remember that we are talking about a constitutional monarchy that has a close relationship with the Government of the day. I am sure that a monarch would not take any action if they believed that, in doing so, they would be acting incorrectly in the background.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Thank you for that short intervention.

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and commend the Bill to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Voting Age

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I am happy to take part in this debate, and I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) on securing it, and all hon. Members who attended the Backbench Business Committee. This important and interesting issue often captures the public’s imagination, and particularly that of young people. I add my support and respect for the UK Youth Parliament which also uses this Chamber and does such important work.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged the contribution of the UK Youth Parliament and its debates in this Chamber, and I wonder whether she would care to pay tribute to my constituent, Chante Joseph, who spoke in one of those debates and is in the Public Gallery today.

[Miss Smith]

I am pleased to know that such people are in the Gallery and engaged with this debate, and no doubt watching us on television. While I am at it, I will pay tribute to the Norfolk Members of the Youth Parliament who also came to this place for that debate.

Whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 is a question on which many Members of this House have passionate and strongly held views—indeed, often opposing views—and those have been expressed again during this debate. Some were pro lowering the voting age and some were against, but Members from all sides of the House interacted strongly and respectfully with each other—in particular let me single out the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and his powerful comments about much of the work he does for the protection of children outside of today’s narrow topic.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on numerous occasions his personal view that there is merit in lowering the voting age, and his views are shared by many in the House. My party tends not to agree, although I am happy to concede that if my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) were in his place, he would show that there is never complete unanimity along party lines on this issue. My political interest began at age 16, when from my comprehensive school in Norfolk I tried to set up a youth forum for Norfolk—I suspect I might have been unusual in that degree of engagement. I accept that there are good arguments from all sides about this issue, although I am not persuaded of the merits of a change to the voting age.

Let me respond to the comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench speakers. I was interested to hear their arguments—as I was to hear those of other hon. Members —and to read comments by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the internet. I note, however, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) voted on the 2005 ten-minute rule Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West, and nor did the Leader of the Opposition or a single member of today’s shadow Cabinet. Although I hear that the Opposition’s views are growing stronger, I wonder what they did during 13 years of government if they did not find time to make that passion felt. A clear case for change is needed—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make one.

[Wayne David]

I am the first to say that this is an evolving debate. I am now convinced that the time has come for us to make the change, but a number of years ago I was not convinced. I think that the Government ought to move with the times and listen to what sensible people are saying.

[Miss Smith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman. As I say, we need a clear case for change and I will use the time available to me today to look at the facts surrounding the issue because I do not think the case is yet made.

[Mr Sheerman]

Will the Minister address the point that I tried to make in my speech—I was a bit of a lone voice—and my concern about the rights of children and their vulnerability if we take protections away when the beginning of adulthood, as sure as can be, is moved from 18 to 16?

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pressing that point, and I will come on to deal with the fact that we do not have a single age of majority in this country. Hon. Members on all sides have debated whether we ought to have a single age and what it should be, and the debate has covered both axes of the argument. I was taken by the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—we should not be protecting young people from democracy.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) did indeed name me, but is not the point that although we may be debating the age at which people can vote, whatever our view on that we all want to see young people engaged? Opposing a reduction of the voting age to 16 does not make us any less in favour of wanting to get more young people involved in the political process.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes part of my argument for me, for which I am grateful.

As I have said, we ought not to amend something as important as the electoral franchise without a clear case for doing so. I note that there are great divergences of opinion in wider society. Most studies and polls show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds favour lowering the voting age—perhaps that is not surprising—but the situation is not always clear. A 2009 YouGov survey of 14 to 25-year-olds conducted for the Citizenship Foundation, another organisation for which I am sure hon. Members have great respect, showed that a majority of that age group—some younger and some older than those in the category we are debating—opposed votes for 16-year-olds: only 31% were in favour, but 54% were against. That provides food for thought and gives hon. Members something to think about on the question of who is likely to say, “Yes, I’d like 16-year-olds to have the franchise,” and who is likely to come to other interesting conclusions.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland.

[John Healey]

Does the Minister accept that the tenor of the debate has been that the case rests on principle and not on popular support?

[Miss Smith]

What the right hon. Gentleman says has merit, but we have heard all shades of the argument, including divergent opinions on principle, on great questions of practicality, which I will come to in a second, on what 16-year-olds can currently do in this country, and on how popular or difficult people find those things.

The Scottish Government have proposed that 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the Scottish independence referendum. That has come up repeatedly in debates, including in the debate on the section 30 order last week. The UK Government’s view is that the existing franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections ought to be used for the referendum. It is also our view that the franchise for the rest of the UK should remain unchanged.

I am familiar with arguments of both principle and practicality on the rights and responsibilities of 16-year-olds. Sixteen-year-olds can leave school, get a job and pay tax to differing degrees—I welcome the expert knowledge of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on that point. Sixteen-year-olds can pay tax on their earnings or expenditure, marry and join the armed forces, with parental consent—some hon. Members ensured that they mentioned that vital point.

In short, 16 and 17-year-olds contribute to society in a range of ways. All hon. Members welcome that contribution and would seek for it to be increased in terms of democratic and political engagement when the time is right. It is true that society allows a 16-year-old to do certain things, but society and Parliament believe that there are many things they should not be able to do, including smoking, buying alcohol or fireworks, and placing a bet.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way, which is to her credit. I am not familiar with the constitution of the Conservative party, but I suspect 16-year-olds can join it in the same way as they can join the Labour party. In the Labour party, and, I suspect, in the Conservative party, 16-year-olds can take part in selecting their parliamentary candidate and in leadership elections, in which they are choosing a potential Prime Minister. If they can take part in those elections, why can they not take part in a general election? [Interruption.]

[Miss Smith]

The right hon. Member for Tooting suggests from a sedentary position that we ought to protect 16-year-olds from taking part in democracy—I suspect that argument has been made in the debate. As I said in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), I see the merits of engaging younger people in politics. However, it is my job to answer for the Government, and it will not have escaped the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that we do not have a consensus on this policy within the Government. I make no bones about that—unless Mrs Bone is available.

Hon. Members on both sides of the argument have tried to exhaust the list of what 16 and 17-year-olds can and cannot do. The contents of the list change from time to time, but that is not the key to the debate, because the UK has no standard age of majority at which people move from being a child, with all the protections that entails, to being an adult. Instead, those rights and responsibilities build over time. People gain the right to do some things when they turn 16 and the right to do other things at other ages. They gain the right to vote the day they turn 18, although I note the argument of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who said that they cannot simply walk out of the door and vote at that point unless they are very lucky with their date of birth.

Hon. Members’ arguments have fallen today on the issue of competence, which is a difficult matter of principle. I will not go into the ins and outs of it because hon. Members have done so, and it is important that the voices of Back Benchers come through in a Backbench Business Committee debate.

As I have said, the Government welcome the involvement in politics of young people who are legally old enough to vote and those who are not. We are seeking to increase the level of political engagement among the youth of this country and to increase registration rates among them to ensure that they exercise the right to vote when they are able to do so.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Government have changed the emphasis on citizenship in schools—it has been pushed to the margins of activity in schools rather than being allowed to flourish.

[Miss Smith]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman but take no further interventions on that because I have little time. He is confusing the concept of activities in schools with the national curriculum, which are two different things.

We need to give young people a say in the issues and decisions that affect them. The Government have made that a key principle in our “Positive for Youth” policy and are engaging young people in the political process in a number of ways. The British Youth Council has received funding from the Department for Education to promote the voice of young people at national and local level. That includes establishing a new national scrutiny group of representative and elected young people to advise Ministers across the UK Government directly. I look forward to my first meeting with the group. The Cabinet Office is working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote to pilot different approaches to engaging directly with young people and black and minority ethnic groups in the UK, including in their schools, colleges and communities, to increase their understanding of both the process and relevance of registering to vote.

Hon. Members have argued that 16 and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote in order to help engage young people at an early age in our democratic and political processes, but they do not yet convince me. I have not seen compelling evidence. The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2008—no doubt it was part of their onward journey—considered ways in which to develop young people’s understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics. It also considered whether the voting age ought to be set at 16. In its summer 2009 report, it felt unable to make a recommendation on whether the voting age should be lowered. It suggested that there was a lack of evidence regarding the merits of votes at 16, and noted that there were vigorous views on either side of the debate, which we have heard in the debate. It said that it is

“of the view that the issue is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.”

That speaks for itself and sums up several strands of the debate.

Those findings were in line with those made five years earlier by the Electoral Commission in its 2004 report on the age of majority. The commission recommended in its report that the minimum age stays at 18 years. It also recommended reducing the minimum candidacy age from 21 to 18 so that voting and candidacy are the same—a number of hon. Members have made that point—and the change was duly introduced.

The evidence is therefore not clear cut. We should certainly continue to consider the question, and I welcome the role of the Backbench Business Committee in that. Perhaps the more pressing question is what we can do to increase registration and turnout in groups who can vote. Registration among young people is lower than among other population groups. Recent Electoral Commission research shows that 55% of 17 and 18-year-olds and 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds were on the register, compared with 94% of over-65s. Those figures are telling.

I also note that the turnout figures for 18 to 24-year-olds have been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, approximately a quarter of that group did not vote. That is important to know and something we all ought to take seriously and work on. There is clearly an issue about engagement, particularly with younger electors, which goes beyond franchise, and the Government are trying to address it.

We are introducing the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which I know we shall enjoy debating in the House next week. It will go some way towards changing the electoral registration process for the better by introducing individual registration. It will create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration. The move from paper to digital will make registration more convenient and increase accessibility—a significant transition. We want to ensure that during this period we enable as many people as possible of all ages to register to vote. We know we need to go further than those changes alone. I mentioned that the Government are working with a range of organisations to seek to engage individuals and communities from all sections of society into the political process, and specifically to drive up registration rates in under-registered groups.

The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to increase voter registration levels, but, to return to the main theme of today’s debate, there is no silver bullet solution. Increasing democratic engagement is not solely the responsibility of Government. Politicians, political parties, electoral administrators, teachers, young people themselves and others in society all have a role to play in encouraging young people to register to vote, and then to actually use their vote in elections and referendums. We must provide people with compelling reasons to vote.

I pay tribute again to hon. Members and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this compelling debate, one in which evidence and principle have their place, and I hope we have done it justice today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sum up for no more than two minutes, I call Stephen Williams.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miss Smith]

The purpose of the Bill has been well explained in the debate on the allocation of time motion and on Second Reading. Clause 1 simply removes male bias primogeniture in the succession to the throne.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Bone. That is the amendment I am moving. It is intended to be helpful and clarifying. Were it to be sent to the other realms in which Her Majesty is sovereign, I would have thought that they would not find it unduly objectionable. Therefore, I bring it to the Government’s attention and hope that they will consider it carefully.

[Miss Smith]

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who through the amendment seeks to make the intention behind clause 2 crystal clear. Clause 2(1) stops a person being disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or being the monarch because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. The amendment would add words to subsection (2) so that it read slightly differently.

My hon. Friend is trying to make crystal clear that the person referred to in subsection (2) is also the person referred to in subsection (1), who would not be disqualified as a result of having married a Roman Catholic. I sincerely thank him for his amendment.

The Government’s view is that the clarification is not required. We believe that the clause is clear as it stands. For the benefit of the record, I should say that the person referred to in subsection (2) is the person who should not be disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of their marriage to a Roman Catholic. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, although I am grateful for the intention behind it. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

[Wayne David]

I very much agree with the Minister’s interpretation; that is my understanding as well. It is important to stress that the intention is made clear not only in the words of subsections (1) and (2) but in the clause heading. I suggest that the amendment is otiose.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Having listened to the Minister, I would not wish to divide the House given the limited time available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to be able to spend a little more time on this stand part debate than on the first; it is clear that the majority of this afternoon’s debate has focused on clause 2.

Clause 2 provides for a major change to the laws of succession to the Crown agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth in 2011. It removes the bar on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from becoming monarch; that is the purpose of subsection (1). Subsection (2) applies the change retrospectively to anyone who is currently in the line of succession. That means that people who have lost their place in the line of succession because of their marriage to a Roman Catholic will regain their place. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), I should say that that will not affect anybody who is particularly high up in the line of succession.

Some have suggested that the change could bring into question the position of the established Church of England. We have discussed that issue extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I give again my full reassurance that the change has no implications for the position of the established Church or for the monarch as the head of the Church of England, because there are no changes to the part of the Act of Settlement that requires the monarch to be a Protestant. I note the interest of some in the Chamber in that point and I re-emphasise it here in Committee. All the clause will do is remove a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic. As I said, it is worth remembering that there is no bar on the heir to the throne marrying anybody else.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to clarify the point that I have asked about twice and that no Minister has replied to. Clause 2 says that someone who marries a Roman Catholic can succeed to the Crown, but clause 3 allows the monarch to remove somebody from the succession by refusing to consent to their marriage. As no reason has to be given why consent is not provided, it could be because the person is Roman Catholic, could it not?

[Miss Smith]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question again because there was unfortunately little time to answer it in detail when winding up the Second Reading debate. It might be worth looking back at some precedents. The point about whether, under clause 3, the monarch would be advised by Ministers was also raised on Second Reading. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Bone, if I deal a little with clause 3 in this debate. In 1967, when there was a question about the marriage—in that case, marriage following a divorce—of a member of the royal family, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, devised a formula that ran along these lines: “The Cabinet has advised the Queen to give her consent and Her Majesty has signified her intention to do so.” That provides an insight into how such advice to the monarch might operate. We have had many debates, connected to this topic and more widely in the media, about advice to and from the monarch and the publication of such correspondence, and I will not stray on to that territory now. However, it should be perfectly reasonable and practical to imagine that there would be such advice to the monarch.

The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether that would include withholding consent to marriage because the person is a Catholic. I will not answer that today because, for a range of reasons, there should be space within such advice with regard to consent. As I explained at the end of Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to have the notion of consent to marriage. After all, we are dealing with those who may become Head of State in due course, so there is a matter of public interest. I hope that that begins to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr MacNeil]

If I recall correctly, the Minister mentioned the monarch being Protestant. Does she mean Church of England, or could the monarch be a member of any other Protestant Church?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I beg your pardon, Mr Bone, if I have been lax in my words. I do not recall saying that, but if I did, I should have said Church of England, because, as we have been discussing, the monarch is in communion with the Church of England. However, it is also the case that we have a Protestant succession in this country.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Minister suggested that under clause 3(1) consent could be refused for a variety of reasons, but does not clause 2(1) limit the prerogative such that a refusal of consent as a result of marriage to a person of the Roman Catholic faith would be unlawful?

[Miss Smith]

Mr Bone, I hope you will forgive me if I stray too far into clause 3—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister, because that is exactly my opinion. We will have a chance to debate clause 3, so perhaps we could stick to clause 2 for the moment.

[Miss Smith]

Clause 2 is extremely clear that the monarch may not be a Roman Catholic. I think that that is the simplest expression of the lawfulness entailed in the clause.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It will not be clear if confusion persists over the matter of Protestant or Church of England. For example, Prince Albert was a Lutheran when he married Queen Victoria; he was a Protestant, not a Catholic. The Hanoverians were Lutherans when they came to the throne. We have a Protestant succession but it also involves supreme governorship of the Church of England.

[Miss Smith]

Again, I am grateful for the chance to be extremely clear. There are no changes to the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.

[Chris Bryant]

But in addition, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. That is very clear in section 3 of the Act of Settlement.

[Miss Smith]

There are many, many sections of the Act of Settlement that we are not dealing with today, and I suspect that that is one of them.

Clause 2 removes a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the throne or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I think that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was trying to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in clause 2(1) and suggesting that that might answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It states:

“A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.”

That, of itself, would not preclude Her Majesty from refusing a marriage on the grounds of somebody being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood seemed to suggest that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Does it?

[Miss Smith]

Again, I suspect that we will have to address that when we discuss clause 3 and are able to go into more detail as to what it does or does not permit. As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am not willing to go through a list of the rules that might be applied to the monarch’s consent. I do not believe that that has been done in matters of tradition before when consent has been sought, but that is a matter for clause 3. Clause 2 is absolutely clear about lifting the bar on marrying a Roman Catholic but, as I have said, it does not change the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.

[Ian Paisley]

The more I listen to the Minister today, the more I realise that she has been at pains to emphasise and explain the point that I have made in amendment 16. I have also received reassurances from her verbally and from the Library’s paperwork. That is why I believe my amendment makes eminent sense, because it says exactly what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Yes, indeed I do. It is the point I have been making at great length all afternoon. In making that point, I would like to thank the Minister for her patient answers to my almost interminable questions. She has done that with great grace and thoughtfulness, for which I am deeply appreciative, but I am still in disagreement. I think this clause would be better left out of the Bill. If we are going to make a change, it needs to be thoroughgoing; otherwise, we simply reinforce the offence of the Act of Settlement and the wording of the Bill of Rights. We need to live, however, with our great and noble history, which is part of what we have grown up with, part of being a subject of the Queen, and part of being a person of the United Kingdom, to put it that way. My preference is for the clause to be removed, but if it is to be included, it should be part of a thoroughgoing reform that allows a Catholic to succeed, but protects the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

With the leave of the Committee, Mr Bone, I shall be very brief.

Let me again acknowledge the breadth and, indeed, the quality of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. I shall not even begin to attempt to define key points in important religions, and for that reason I shall not accept the challenge issued to me by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I do not think that it is for a Minister to do that. However, I also acknowledge that clauses such as this lead to tensions in Government.

The existing legislation prevents a successor to the Crown from marrying a Catholic. I hear the arguments that the proposal in the Bill may create a situation requiring—as one Member put it—wisdom and good sense on the part of parents, and indeed the child himself or herself, and I accept that that constitutes a tension, but I believe that the clause strikes a balance that will be helpful to the 21st-century monarchy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 20, after ‘descendants’ insert ‘from the marriage’.

Clause 3 is, as one Member put it earlier, one of the more arcane provisions in the Bill. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 currently requires, subject to some very limited exceptions, the descendants of George II to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying. That probably affects hundreds of people, and we do not think that such a sweeping provision continues to serve a useful purpose today.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I merely wish to ask the Minister to address herself to questions that have been raised about the number six. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) suggested one explanation, and other Members made further suggestions. I should also like the Minister to consider how the Government envisage the discharging of the sovereign’s consent in practice, and whether the decision on granting that consent could depend on the religion of the person concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I have only one question on the clause. It relates to the position of members of the royal family who are not among the first six and therefore not subject to the new royal marriages Act. As the Minister will know, members of the royal family are generally excluded from Marriage Acts, as they have been from Hardwicke’s Marriage Act onwards, and I would be concerned if members of the royal family who were not the six closest to the throne had any complications in being certain that their marriages were valid.

I wonder, therefore, what the Government’s view on this is and whether any future legislation is intended, or whether it is intended that members of the royal family outside the six will be brought under the normal Marriage Acts in future.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

Now might be the moment to make a few general comments on clause stand part, as well as to respond to hon. Members’ questions. As has been made particularly clear, clause 3 repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replaces it with provisions that we believe are more suitable for the modern context. The original 1772 provision probably affects hundreds of people. We do not think that such a sweeping provision is practical or serves a useful purpose today. Indeed, if we want to dwell on Cabinet history, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who thought that those provisions were obscure and unsatisfactory, might note that this was raised by the Cabinet as far back as 1960.

Clause 3 seeks to ensure that the sovereign’s consent is obtained before the first six people in the line of succession can marry. Various hon. Members have asked why the number is six. I want to answer that question with reference to the reasonable reach of changes, which I referred to earlier. There is a question about unreasonably changing the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, and I think that we ought to take a cautious approach in such an area. The Government believe that the consent of the monarch for the marriages of the first six people in the line of succession provides a measure of reasonable proximity. Indeed, since the 1772 Act was enacted, the throne has never passed to anybody who was more than six steps away in the line of succession. Therefore, subsection (1) limits the requirement to seek the monarch’s consent to the first six people.

[Mark Reckless]

If the Crown has not passed to anyone beyond No. 6, has it passed to anyone who was No. 6? If so, is that the rationale for choosing that number?

[Miss Smith]

Historians in the House might leap to correct me, but I understand that Queen Victoria was the most extreme example, at No. 5. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.

Let me turn to the notion that the sovereign ought not to have a part in that decision. The role of the sovereign in giving consent to a royal marriage is part of our tradition and is entrenched in law. The Government also consider that there is a public interest in the marriages of those closest to the throne, so we believe that the requirement to seek the sovereign’s consent continues to serve a valuable purpose.

[Christopher Pincher]

If my hon. Friend accepts that the public have a legitimate interest in active members of the royal family, who might be styled “Royal Highness”, and that the monarch might therefore wish to have some control over who they marry, does she not agree that the monarch might wish to have some control over those who are seventh, eighth or ninth in line to the throne marry, as they, too, might be active members of the royal family who are styled “Royal Highness”?

[Miss Smith]

Two points need to be made in response to that question. We here in Parliament, taking due account of our responsibilities to legislate on such matters, do so cautiously. We have used a pragmatic number, and I have tried to explain from where we have derived that number. We think that it is cautious and pragmatic. However, I also referred to the notion of the people who come within the scope of the Bill also exercising wisdom, good sense, pragmatism and caution. I suggest that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a person who is No. 7 or No. 8 to be careful in such matters. That is perhaps as far as I ought to go on that, but I do not think that that is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. However, the fact is that we in Parliament have to fix a number. I have tried to explain why we think that number ought to be six.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will my hon. Friend help me, because I simply do not understand what she means by five, six or seven. For example, what was Queen Victoria’s number in relation to the previous King?

[Miss Smith]

Putting blood relationships to one side, as I understand it Queen Victoria was the fifth in line to the point at which those consents were sought. We want the current monarch to be able to look ahead six times. It is the case that the throne has never passed to anyone more than six steps away in the line of succession. I hope that those two points answer my hon. Friend’s question.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It might help my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) if I went through the list as it relates to Queen Victoria in relation to George III. George III’s heir, George IV, is No. 1; Princess Charlotte is No. 2; King William is No. 3; the Duke of Kent is No. 4; and Queen Victoria is No. 5. That is how we get to five on the basis that the Minister has been calculating.

[Miss Smith]

I am eternally grateful in so many ways to my hon. Friend. I suppose that an alternative way of expressing the point would be to say that the throne had changed hands five times. I hope that the combination of comments has made things clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).

Let me turn to the common question, asked by several hon. Members, of whether clause 2 knocks out clause 3, as it were. I want to answer it with reference to what I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda. The monarch will act having taken advice from Ministers, who will wish to take account of the public interest. That is a clear expression of my earlier point.

If, as I hope, the Bill passes, clause 2 will stand and Ministers will need to have regard to it if they consider a situation under clause 3.

[Chris Bryant]

What happens if, for instance, the monarch disagrees with Ministers and Parliament disagrees with Ministers or the monarch—if it takes one side or the other? There is no means of determining a proper reason for coming to the decision, and now the Minister has added yet another category, which is that No. 7 and No. 8 in the line of succession have to be careful. This is just a mess.

[Miss Smith]

The legislation is clear. The sovereign’s consent is required. The 1772 Act, as the hon. Gentleman identified, had a role for Parliament. Clause 3 repeals that Act and replaces it with provisions under which the sovereign’s consent is required. Clause 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) explains how that occurs.

I will be happy to come back to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) with further details about how data are handled under those three categories; as he well knows, there is a greater debate to be had.

I want to reiterate and clarify my points about Nos. 7 and 8 in the line of succession. I simply note that the line of succession is such that, without being blunt about it, people pass away. Nos. 7 and 8 ought to be able to expect that such situations change; that is the only comment I make. It is therefore clear that a certain amount of pragmatism should go into that situation.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure what “being careful” means. Nowhere in the Bill is a valid reason given for not giving consent. For instance, would marrying a drug baron be a reason for not giving consent? I raise that because that was the case in the Netherlands, and it was one reason why consent was denied. But it was denied by Parliament, because that is the Dutch system, which is much more sensible. Would it be legitimate to refuse consent on the basis of there being a same-sex marriage?

[Miss Smith]

I shall be happy to come in a second to the provisions on civil partnership and same-sex marriage.

On the use of caution, I simply reiterate the point that I have made several times in the course of the debate—that we are talking about human beings and, on the whole, a limited family. It is not beyond the bounds of reason for members of that family to act with regard to the legislation that we are passing. I will leave it at that, as Mr Bone would of course stop me if I went further into matters that are outwith the scope of this Bill. There is a need for Parliament to select a number, and I have explained why six is appropriate. I have also attempted to deal with what happens to members in the line of succession who might be close to becoming No. 6.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister said that six is a practical number, but she also said that Nos. 7 and 8 will need to be “careful”. Needing to be careful might be interpreted in their minds as, “Get married quick before anything happens that means that you become No. 6 and therefore have to get the monarch’s consent.” It might appear to mean, “Marry in haste.”

[Miss Smith]

I have nothing more to add to the comments I made a few moments ago. I think that in these situations a degree of pragmatism might prevail.

[Christopher Pincher]

The Minister talks about practicalities and pragmatism, and people showing good sense. May I remind her that Queen Victoria had nine children, all of whom contracted marriage? Under these proposals, six of them would have had to seek the Queen’s consent to marriage and three would not. Is that sensible? Would the Queen have been amused?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend asks me to comment on a direct historical precedent. I do not think it is helpful to do that, because it is, after all, the past. Mr Evans, who is now in the Chair, would of course stop me if I sought to impute any opinion to any member of the royal family, past or present.

Let me move on to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said about civil ceremonies and civil partnerships. There is no bar on the heir or other members of the royal family marrying in a civil ceremony. Moreover, I am unaware of any legal bar to somebody who is in a same-sex relationship acceding to the throne. I would envisage that the sovereign’s consent measures in clause 3 would continue to be the case for same-sex relationships. I will not comment on legislation that this House has not yet considered, which, as the hon. Gentleman might understand, would cover the notion of same-sex marriage.

[Mark Reckless]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been trying to clarify whether clause 3(1) will be subject to clause 2(1). The Minister has said that Ministers would have regard to clause 2(1) in advising the Crown on use of the prerogative. Is that an intentionally weaker formulation than being subject to clause 2(1)?

[Miss Smith]

My response was not in any way an attempt to fail to answer my hon. Friend’s question. As clause 2 will be a part of this legislation, it will be lawful for Ministers to refer to it. I would therefore say that clause 2 does apply to decisions made under clause 3.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested alternative ways of replacing or updating the Royal Marriages Act 1772. My hon. Friend suggested that we simply substitute descendants of George II with those of Elizabeth II, our current monarch, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that we do the same with regard to the descendants of George IV. Either of those approaches could lead to an identical ballooning of the problem that we have seen under the Royal Marriages Act. It is obvious that the situation would only get worse with time as more and more descendants came into existence. A sensible approach is to replace the unworkable provisions of the Royal Marriages Act with a measure that is limited, pragmatic, and, as the Bill suggests, subject to procedures including the Great Seal and Order in Council.

Finally, clause 3(5) makes provision that marriages previously made void by the Royal Marriages Act are not to be regarded as invalid, which is important. Subsection (6) ensures that the validity of the descent of the Crown from King George II down to the present day will not be affected by the changes in subsection (5). We have already covered the other subsections. The measures provide a sensible update. We have already dealt with the Government amendment that ensures that the clear policy intention behind the Bill is correctly expressed by it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Commencement and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I rise to speak briefly to clause 5 because earlier, when I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that this Bill, if and when it is enacted by this Parliament, will not be effective until such time as it has been ratified by the legislatures of the other 15 realms, the Deputy Prime Minister was unfortunately not able to give me an answer as to when he thought that process might be complete. Although I understand that he confirmed that this Bill will not be enacted until the other 15 realms have enacted their provisions, will my hon. Friend the Minister expand on and enlighten the House about subsection (3), which states that the provisions will come into force at different days and times?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I shall certainly do my best. I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to end our debate with an issue about which we spoke earlier.

All the realms need to bring these measures into force. We have a clear commitment from them that they are doing so, and we are working closely with them to ensure smooth application. It is difficult to give a date today, but I shall endeavour to keep not only my hon. Friend, but the House updated on it. As I think he knows, not all the realms need to legislate, so slightly different processes will take place in each. The agreement between the Commonwealth countries is that the measures will apply from the point in 2011 when agreement was secured.

[Wayne David]

Is my understanding correct that, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, although individual Parliaments in the respective states of the Commonwealth might give their assent in different ways, they do have to give their assent?

[Miss Smith]

I share that understanding. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point that although other realms will make their provisions in slightly different procedural ways, we certainly expect that to happen and I look forward to them being brought into force.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I apologise for persisting in this, but much emphasis has been given throughout the day to the idea that, if we amend this Bill, that might prejudice the agreement that was reached at Perth. Presumably that stricture applies to all the other 15 realms. Does my hon. Friend have any intelligence to share with the House in how others see it? Also, if any of those 15 realms were to amend their legislation, would that affect us?

[Miss Smith]

As I said, I think it is best to acknowledge the challenges in that co-ordination process, and my hon. Friend makes clear some of the complexity involved. As I said, we are working with those realms to ensure smooth application of the legislation, and I look forward to keeping the House updated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

I want to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to the Treason Act 1351. I presume that one reason why different legislatures around the world might come to slightly different legislative answers, yet still give the same assent, is that they have different provisions on the law of treason, whereas we still have the 1351 Act on the statute book. Why has the Minister insisted on including paragraph 1(b) in the schedule?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me into matters that have been the subject of public controversy in relatively recent years. The important point, as he suggested, is that the realms to which the Bill will apply have other relevant legislation and customs. For example, one of the many reasons why we are not discussing hereditary peerages today is that they are not a uniform matter across all the realms. There are other reasons, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not reopen the debate, Mr Evans. I confirm that we are working with all the other realms to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended appropriately.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Is the Minister giving way?

[Miss Smith]

I would rather the Question be put.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the words of Burns. Those people were “bought and sold for English gold”. That gives me an idea about taking people back—the 150 who have a vested interest in Westminster, for example. All that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government need to do is buy and sell them for Scottish gold. If the vested interests could be bought off in that way, we might bring about independence a bit earlier.

It was the Scottish reaction to the Act of Settlement of 1701 that led to the events that I was describing. The motivator was the desire not for a political superstate but for a unitary monarchy, and the question had to be decided before the death of Queen Anne. Fortunately, for the benefit of the House, the Scottish National party can allay the fears created by the Act of Settlement: the monarchy will continue to be shared with Scotland and England, and the need for the Acts of 1706 in England and 1707 in Scotland will disappear. We can therefore proceed to independence and dissolve the two Unions. I am sure that I am alone in this Chamber in holding that belief, but I am not alone in Scotland in so doing.

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

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has kept the royal household informed at every stage of his plans?

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not have Her Majesty on my text message list, but if she wanted to drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to respond to it. However, I do know that her personal private secretary is a visitor to the Hebrides and has relatives there. The links are indeed multi-faceted, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth can testify. She, too, has links with the Hebrides and has worked in the royal household. As we can see, the monarchy reaches us all in many ways.

History aside, the Bill is surely flawed. Many people have described how flawed it is. It is only a halfway house —a real dog’s breakfast of broken biscuits. It deals with succession and partially with freedom of religion, but it leaves the question of full freedom of religion untouched. It also leaves with the monarch the bizarre, arcane requirement for marital approval of six people in the line of succession. Some cultures have an adaptation of that requirement in the form of arranged marriages, but here in Westminster, we are institutionalising it.

The Bill affects other realms as well, and I wonder whether they will progress further than this Parliament and deal with this issue more fully, rather than having a halfway house, waiting for Westminster to catch up—as it inevitably will some day. They are free and independent, and by doing so they will save themselves an immense amount of time and hassle in the future, but they will also signal their fairness and egalitarianism to the wider world. Indeed, in Australia, republican zest seems to appear from time to time.

It should be noted that in 1999, the Scottish Parliament pushed for a motion for the removal of any discrimination linked to the monarchy and the repeal of the Act of Settlement. So progressive opinion—at least in Scotland—is 14-years-old before this issue has come to Westminster. While there may be a lot of huff and puff here at Westminster about allowing the monarchy to be Catholic, practically, I do not think it really matters. I do not think that the current or future royals are likely to convert to Catholicism, any more than would the King of Norway or the Queen of Denmark. The fact that a Parliament has gone to such lengths to discriminate against a certain faith group is surely odd in an international context. No doubt it will be ripe for lampooning, perhaps on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on CNN because it is a step back and truly bizarre. I am sure that history will judge it as bizarre, especially when we think that such contrary views existed in the Scottish Parliament 14 years ago. I am not sure whether bans on Catholics exist in Denmark and Norway—if they are so allergic to the idea—or whether bans against Protestants exist in Spain. Surely there is enough smeddum and sense in those societies to remove such proscriptions.

Equally, I hope that other monarchies do not hold the power over their relatives’ choice of spouse—a power that is rightly alien to their subjects when it comes to their nearest and dearest. When Scotland becomes independent in the next few years, we will certainly retain the monarch, as Canada, New Zealand and Australia have done, but we shall remove such infantile restrictions as we see here today. We will wait until the keystone Parliament—in a way Westminster will always be that mainly due to the residency of the monarch in close proximity to it—catches up. In the meantime, we can look forward to saying, “God save the Queen of an independent Scotland”.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for a most compelling debate that has highlighted the gravity of the changes we are making to the UK’s constitution by removing two pieces of discrimination that must not remain on our statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when opening the debate, the Bill is in many ways about equality. It turns a page on centuries of discrimination and prejudice on religious and gender grounds in one of our most important institutions—the monarchy.

It falls to me to respond to a number of the important issues raised. First, I welcome the support shown around the Chamber, including that of the loyal Opposition. I also welcome the range of experience that came through in the comments made, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I welcome the passion that has been shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is also not in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), even though they were on different sides of the debate. I also welcome the erudition shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and—need I mention him—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Let me begin on the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) finished: he asked what would happen if an heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or somebody of any other faith. That is possible today and the Bill should not raise further fears. We should be able to accept, debate and deal with that question in the 21st century.

I want to start with the implications for the established Church of the changes we have discussed today. I reassure all hon. Members that the changes proposed in the Bill are limited to removing the bar on marriage to a Roman Catholic. I think all Members know that. The Bill does not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne and in no way touches the basis of the established Church. Indeed, the Church of England has made that clear in its own words. I have already quoted the words in the other place of the Bishop of Blackburn, which are helpful to our debate.

Various points were made about the Church of Scotland that raised some interest across the Chamber. I understand that the Church of Scotland does not define itself as an established Church, but I shall not go further into that debate as I do not have time to do so. I reassure the House, however, that the Church of Scotland, among others, was consulted in the course of our work.

Various Members raised the possibility of an heir entering into a mixed Anglican and Catholic marriage and discussed what would happen under Roman Catholic canon law. Some feared that that could lead to a constitutional crisis, and I want to reassure them. There is an example of that in the royal family in Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, the son and daughter of Prince Michael of Kent. He married a Catholic, but the children have been brought up in the Anglican communion. I suggest that that is a pragmatic example in the modern monarchy. I would not dream of taking on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I note that various guidance has been published in the intervening years that might provide practical advice.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

My hon. Friend refers to Princess Michael of Kent. When Prince and Princess Michael married in 1978, they did not marry in a Catholic church. That was corrected five years later, after her children had been born.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point for the edification of our colleagues, but I do not see how that detracts from the main point that it has been possible to take a pragmatic view of how the modern monarchy must function. We have already spoken about the relevant guidance, which suggests that one should do one’s best to have the children raised as Catholics but that there could be just and reasonable cause for not doing so. The protection of the place of the established Church is a rather large cause and some colleagues mentioned that. The Church of England, as I have said, has made it clear that the requirement to join communion with the Church of England is not affected by the Bill. The Archbishop of Westminster has confirmed that he recognises the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering faith in our society.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important in this day and age to remove specific reference to Roman Catholics. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we spend a great deal of time making sure that minority groups do not suffer discrimination, and as a Roman Catholic I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue this matter as speedily as possible. It is rather insulting for Catholics to be in this position—not that I am going to marry a member of the royal family or anything.

[Miss Smith]

I wish my hon. Friend luck in that last endeavour. I thank him for his comments, which demonstrate the breadth of views that have been expressed this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex asked whether the legislation would make it more likely that we will have a Catholic monarch. No, it does not. It makes it more likely that the heir to the throne may marry a Catholic—that is what the legislation does—but the bar remains on the sovereign being a Roman Catholic. There is no more need for a constitutional crisis now than there was before, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.

I should like to deal with the point that has been raised a couple of times about, shall we say, the human misery of having to choose between one’s faith and the throne. Let us not forget that there is a particular piece of misery already available under the existing constitutional arrangements, which is not being able to marry the person you love. It is important to note that that is already available to anyone who wishes that particular form of difficulty. It is evident to everyone in the country that the huge public popularity of the wedding of certain members of the family in recent years shows that members of a modern monarchy do and can marry for love, and we ought to consider that as we discuss the tensions that that family may feel.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to speak, and doubtless there will be more in Committee.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) wondered whether a female heir would be styled “the Princess of Wales”. The granting of royal titles is a matter for the sovereign, and it is not within the scope of the Bill. He made various points about the Duchy of Cornwall not passing to a female heir. Again, as a matter of title, that is a matter for the sovereign. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) to discuss the points that they made.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He began by raising something that is touched on in amendments which have not been selected for debate: the issue of two daughters and the clarity of succession. We are confident that it is clear, having regard to the succession to the Crown in 1952, that when a monarch dies the eldest daughter, if there are two, would succeed. We believe that there is no need to make statutory provision to address that. I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend made about the Counsellors of State, who are the spouse of the monarch and the next four individuals in the line of succession, except where they are disqualified by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I thank my hon. Friend for the breadth of ground covered by his other points; we may have a chance to return to that.

Turning to retrospective measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested that clause 2 ought not to apply retrospectively. We are dealing with the need to respect realistic changes to the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, so there are differences in what clauses 1 and 2 do. We may come on to that in Committee. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that in this day and age there was no need for anyone to seek the sovereign’s consent to marry. I remind him that it may well be in the public interest that consent should be given for the marriage of someone who may become our Head of State. Other European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, require such consent.

Other points raised included whether the requirement of consent to the first six in line to the throne ought to apply to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. One factual answer is that the line of succession in recent history has rarely gone beyond six. A more amusing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, if he will allow me, is that his ambition is not high enough if he does not aim to become Father of the House in 200 or 300 years’ time to be here to see that problem repeat itself should all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II be allowed—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that I am about to run out of time. It remains for me to deal with the point from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about children who are adopted or born as a result of donor eggs. I can clarify that it is only the children of a husband and wife who are entitled to succeed, not adopted children or those born from artificial insemination.

I commend the Bill to the House—

[Wayne David]

I thank the Minister for her response. May I press her on the issue of the figure of six? Can she give a slightly more detailed explanation, rather than saying, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that that was a pragmatic decision or that there was some historical precedent? Can she be more specific and—

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—

Timetable

1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.

(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.

(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

2. When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Consideration of Lords Amendments

8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or

(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.

11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and

(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.

14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.

The Government tabled the motion in order to provide two days of discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons. It is a very short Bill, with just five clauses and one schedule, and it has been tightly drafted to give effect to the agreement by Commonwealth realm Heads of Government to change the rules governing succession to the Crown. It will remove the male bias in the line of succession and the bar on the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772 with provisions that are suitable for the present day. I am confident that all Members will agree that those are laudable aims. They have been public since the Perth announcement in 2011, and I am very pleased that they have cross-party support. Having secured the full agreement of all realms to the text of the Bill, the Government are now keen to make progress as quickly as possible. We believe that, given the narrow scope of the Bill, two days of debate in this place will be ample.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and I am extremely respectful of the range of views—perhaps we ought to call it the coalition of views—that have been expressed this afternoon. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will tackle a few of the points that have been made and attempt to keep to the point of the programme motion.

I am honour bound to say that the Bill is not being treated as if it were terrorism legislation, as a few hon. Members, and indeed some recent items in the media, have suggested. As hon. Members will know, the usual channels in the House have reflected on the timetable and taken the pragmatic decision to allow two days for debate, rather than any less time. We think that that will provide ample time for any issues to be debated before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. I note that since 2007 a number of Bills have taken a shorter amount of time for the parliamentary process, and among them is another constitutional Bill, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which took a shorter time in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.

I understand from his amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to expand the scope of the discussion to include provisions relating to the religion of children of persons in the line of succession to the Crown who have married a—dare I say it—person of the Roman Catholic faith. That would of course pave the way for a number of amendments on the matter that he has tabled for consideration in Committee. Although I agree that we should have a full debate on the Bill, and I believe that we will have that in the time the business managers have allocated, I also think that it would be unhelpful, in effect, to disregard the scope of the Bill and add additional areas for debate. We need to focus on the pertinent issues and those that are in the Bill. Having said that, I will attempt to deal with a few of the substantive issues that have been raised.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Minister refers to the usual channels and business managers, but the fact is that there seems to be widespread concern across the House, and not expressed through the usual channels, about the timetable motion as drafted. We also set out in the coalition agreement that the matter would be decided by a House business committee, which is yet to be established. Would this not be an opportune moment at least to reconsider the programme motion in the light of what has been expressed by many Members across the House?

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I note his concern, and indeed the range of views that have been expressed this afternoon. I dispute that we have heard only one side of the debate this afternoon; I think that we have heard a range of views on the programme motion.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and indeed for the very sincere way in which she has handled the meetings that have taken place outside the Chamber. Does she agree that she is opening a royal Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that will have a significant impact across the kingdom? If she satisfies me today by saying, “The Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic”, unfortunately she will dissatisfy other colleagues in the House. I think that those matters have massive consequences. I ask her to address that point in her comments on the timetable and the lack of consultation that appears to have taken place.

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those further points. He seeks to draw me on one of the amendments he has tabled. In brief, I assure him that my view, and that of the Government, is that there is no need for his amendment because those parts of the legislation to which it relates still stand. That leads me to an extremely important point: the Bill, as it stands, has an extremely narrow scope. Therefore, in the view of the usual channels and the Government, it is receiving the correct amount of parliamentary time for debate.

[Paul Flynn]

There is universal approval in the House for the ending of gender discrimination, but does the Minister not agree that the Bill, rather than getting rid of a religious discrimination, actually reinforces it by excluding people from other religions—evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews and Muslims—from the possibility of ever becoming Head of State?

[Miss Smith]

One of the curious aspects of the debate is that we could take almost as long to discuss what is already wrong with the status quo, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do.

I must deal with a number of points that have been made across the Chamber today. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for removing the male bias in primogeniture, and I think that other Members of the House fully support our view on that.

As a Conservative, I do not talk here for political correctness; I talk here for religious equality and freedom. I think it is important that the Bill will end a long-standing piece of unique discrimination. The current provisions are uniquely anti-Catholic because they bar the heir from marrying a Papist or a member of the Roman Catholic faith—whatever term one wishes to use—but I think that much of that terminology is the product of a different age, when the kingdom was threatened by expansionist Catholic realms elsewhere. However, those provisions do not apply to anybody else. They do not apply to atheists, Muslims, Jews, people of no religion or any combination of religions. I believe in the freedom that the Bill will open up by removing that unique piece of discrimination. The changes also do not affect in any way the place of the established Church of England.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Forgive me, but my hon. Friend cannot say that the issue does not affect the established Church of England and that the Bill ends discrimination; it is discriminatory by definition that the Church of England should be the established Church in these islands. What my—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that it is inadvertent and a consequence of the interest in the subject, but interventions are now eliding into the subject matter of the Second Reading debate. The matter with which we are concerned now is purely the allocation of time motion. The Minister is offering her view in response to the contributions to that debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and volunteer his further thoughts ere long.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly look forward to far more debate on those matters on Second Reading.

It does not need me to stand here and say that the changes do not affect the established Church because the established Church says that for itself. The Church of England has said:

“The present prohibition…is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty.”

I know that the House will find that welcome.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think the Church may have missed the fact that Counsellors of State could be Catholic because they tend to have married into the Crown.

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful for that further erudite contribution from my hon. Friend. I suspect that might be a matter in respect of which he would wish to extend the scope of the Bill, and I shall have to return to that point.

[John Hemming]

Does the Minister not agree that this is a unique Bill in that it is being sent around to the nations of the Commonwealth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

On that note, I had best return to questions of process, as is absolutely right at this stage of the afternoon’s work.

It is important to bring out in this debate the fact that the Church of England also said:

“This Government and the previous Government have consulted closely with senior Church of England figures throughout the long process which has led up to the introduction of this Bill.”

The Bishop of Blackburn has said that the reforms

“of the rules of royal succession are sensible and timely.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 168.]

I wish to raise those points because they draw us right back to the notion that we now have an opportunity to make the change for modern times. The process that has allowed us to do that, with consultation, is backing us. The royal household, the Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been kept informed at every stage. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the scope of the Bill has been tightly drawn to give effect to the specific goals agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

I invite my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment and I commend the allocation of time motion to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I shall now put the question on the amendment.

Electoral Registration

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for providing us with a helpful and interesting debate. I will attempt to answer the various questions that have been raised, and I hope that I will entertain the Chamber for the remaining 21 minutes.

On the point of sheer entertainment, I will mention my constituency, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned his. The Chartists enjoyed their moment in Norwich, too. I live round the corner from Mousehold heath, the scene of a great point in the history of democratic and somewhat rebellious engagement, which is a fine thing to mention in this debate.

On a perhaps drier topic, encouraging individual registration is vital, and I reassure the Chamber that the Government do not lack ambition on that. It is the role of the Government, politicians, political parties, electoral administrators and plenty of others to encourage people to register to vote. The Government are committed to doing all we can to maximise registration levels, and to consider ways to modernise the system to make it as easy and convenient as possible to register to vote.

The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament and provided us all with a few moments of excitement last night, with perhaps a few raised heart rates here and there, will go some way towards changing the electoral registration process for the better by introducing individual electoral registration. The Bill will create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration, which I am pleased to confirm will be available from July 2014. The Bill will also provide for the use of data matching to verify applications, to confirm existing entries on registers during the transition to IER and to find individuals who do not currently appear on the register. We have already carried out pilot schemes.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does the Minister agree that the findings of the data-matching processes so far indicate that the electoral register is the most accurate record in existence? The electoral register is more accurate than the records of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, perhaps because it is compiled by people who live in a particular area and who go door to door.

[Miss Smith]

In some ways, the hon. Lady is right. The electoral register, by its nature, is a repository of solid information, but it is important that we put to work other data sets held by different levels of government to maximise numbers. We all want the numbers to be maximised, and we must find the best ways to do so. We are carrying out various schemes to test the usefulness of matching electoral registers against several public authority data sets. A further set of pilots will commence shortly, some of which will address students and recent home moves.

[Chris Ruane]

Will the Minister explain why the date for introducing IER, which was agreed with all-party consensus under the previous Labour Government, was moved forward one year from 2015 to 2014? Why was that consensus broken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, in general terms, for his flashes of bipartisanship both in this debate and, occasionally, in the main Chamber, but I regret that some of his, dare I say, time-filling appeared to descend into slightly more partisan commentary. I will be similarly partisan in response: the version introduced by Labour cost more than our version to the tune of some £100 million, and I think it is worth comparing schemes on that basis. The previous scheme would have caused confusion because, effectively, it sought to run a voluntary version of individual registration alongside another process. I believe that the version before us is somewhat cleaner.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. Why, specifically, was the date moved from 2015 to 2014? Was it to gain party political advantage for the general election and because the Government foresaw the deadline for the next review of parliamentary boundaries in December 2015?

[Miss Smith]

In short, no.

Other hon. Members have asked various questions about data matching, which I must address so that I answer everyone in time. In particular, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about the use of credit reference agencies, which is a point that he has raised capably many times. We considered the possibility of a pilot using credit reference agency data, but I am advised that running such a scheme within the existing legislation would be difficult. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), I am interested in finding as many useful sources of data as possible, and I shall continue to look for them. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and I will continue that debate as we continue our research, but I am aware of a number of shortcomings in using data from credit reference agencies.

There will be a move to digital applications from the current paper application form, which will make registration more convenient for a number of people. The move will increase accessibility for many people with disabilities. I will be talking to the Electoral Commission later this week, and I am happy to raise the points raised by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden on the accessibility of the forms. We will be actively encouraging applicants to use the online system, which we intend to be the primary channel for applications. It is important, however, that we retain the option of a paper form to cater for anyone who is not ready for the move.

I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point on absent voters. She generously explained how important that group is in her constituency, and often, those in that group are older voters, whom we will consider carefully. I certainly would not wish to see any such group disadvantaged, and I will watch that carefully.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The Minister suggests that she wishes to watch the process carefully, but of course the Government have the power to change their mind about the proposal that people with postal votes should not be automatically rolled over. There is still time to do that before the new process comes into play. Rather than simply reacting to a problem after the event, perhaps the Minister might consider a change of mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for that reminder of what a Minister is and is not capable of doing. I repeat that I will be watching all these matters like a hawk. Some are within our direct control, some are for the Electoral Commission and some are for Parliament as we complete the process. I reassure her that I am deeply interested in ensuring that we maximise registration levels in all corners.

The current plans for registration include the annual canvass, and I fully assure the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent that it will continue to be used for as long as it remains the best way to ensure that the register is as complete as possible. If data matching is used, and we hope that we might now be able to match well over two thirds of voters by using that method, a whole new world of possibilities is opened up as to how we might, on an annual basis, register the right people. I do not think a situation in which the annual canvass is less effective than new methods is beyond our lifetimes. I do not suggest that I know what those methods might be—I deliberately take a long view in posing this scenario—but it is possible to use the legislation ahead of time to introduce a power to give an instruction not to use an annual canvass if other methods have become more effective. I repeat that we are all interested in effective methods. I am not interested in ineffective ones. However, Members will have heard the fuller debate on that issue in the Chamber earlier this year when it came before the Commons. I reassure them once again that all the safeguards will remain in place before any such abolition will be considered.

[Wayne David]

I welcome what the Minister says up to a point, but rather than hypothetical future scenarios, we are looking for proof that the Government are learning the lesson from Northern Ireland, as the Electoral Commission said, and recognising the centrality of annual canvasses. What might happen in future is a matter for another time; we want a categorical affirmation that the lessons from Northern Ireland have been learned and that an annual canvass is here.

[Miss Smith]

It is important that I go on to Northern Ireland before we run out of time. We are absolutely clear that we will be learning and have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland, and we have looked carefully into the Electoral Commission’s report. We are taking steps to prevent a fall in registration levels upon the introduction of individual electoral registration by retaining the annual canvass—as I said, we have no plans to abolish it in Great Britain—by moving the 2013 canvass to early 2014 to allow a more accurate and up-to-date register to be used at the beginning of the transition to IER, and testing and evaluating the benefits of data matching, about which I spoke briefly, by confirming eligible electors through the data match process. That confirmation will give us a substantial baseline level of completeness throughout the transition to individual registration. All those things are vital. We have always recognised that the transition to individual registration poses a risk to completeness rates, so we are putting in place those safeguards.

[Chris Ruane]

Registration rates in Northern Ireland are down to 71% and could go lower. At what percentage—60% or 55%, for example—does the Minister believe that we will stop having a properly functioning democracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I do not intend to answer that with a number, but as I have said many times and will say once more, we are all interested in the maximum level of registration in this country.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister respond to the very good point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the crucial difference that can be made by the ability of the canvasser on the doorstep to help people complete the form? Will she reconsider it and commit to moving in that direction?

[Miss Smith]

I will. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman asks, as it reminds me to ensure that I answer the hon. Lady’s question. I do not believe that there is anything to prevent canvassers from helping on the doorstep. I am happy to come back on that in further detail, as I see that we are running out of time.

On the civil penalty for failing to make an application to register when requested to do so by a certain date, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked me for a figure. It is currently subject to keen stakeholder engagement, and I look forward to being able to update the House in due course. In passing, I note under that heading that the civil penalty is about deterrence, not making money. The sum will fall to zero once the individual registers. There is no interest in turning it into a money pot; that is simply not what it is for. I reassure the Chamber that through the safeguards that I have described, we want a situation in which we have confirmed the majority of existing electors and automatically retained them in the register, which will allow us to ensure that the register is at least as complete as it is now while improving its accuracy during the transition to individual registration.

It is important that I discuss some other measures in the time available. The IER system must be flexible enough to respond to changes in society. Beyond the transition, we will assess the most appropriate channels for applications. We want it to be digital by default, and we want an IT service to underpin the process for validating all applications, in whatever format they are made.

The Government are, of course, committed to funding the transition to individual registration, as has been noted throughout this debate. We will fund local authorities in England and Wales directly through grants made under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, allocated for the purposes of paying for the transition. Local authorities will receive a non-ring-fenced specific grant to pay for the move to IER. It will not be included in the formula grant. Appropriate safeguards already exist in the legal duties, which will be seen by the House in secondary legislation, and those duties rest on electoral registration officers. Local authorities will clearly be obliged to fund a number of business-critical activities, and that is in compliance with their statutory duty to pay EROs’ properly incurred expenses. I am happy to deal with that matter more in correspondence if Members wish.

Encouraging democratic participation is vital, and I hope that hon. Members have noted my commitment to it in the flavour of my comments in this debate. We are seeking to work with a range of organisations to engage individuals and communities from all sections of society in the political process. I am afraid that I cannot avoid using a minute to respond to some of the more partisan points made by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). Nobody owns voters, places or cities. We all go out and work for them. I am sure that he joins me in that sentiment, and I look forward to working with him in his more bipartisan moments.

We know that registration levels are disproportionately low in some groups; I think that everybody has made that point in this debate. To help us understand current levels of electoral registration, we have carried out a detailed programme of research, including funding an Electoral Commission study on the completeness and accuracy of the register, an independent academic review of all available research and further studies into exploring the barriers to registration for groups missing from the register under the current system.

I said that I would mention some places on which the data-mining pilots are particularly focused. As I think hon. Members know, they are to be focused on attainers, students and recent home movers, among others. I have no concerns about being approached by Universities UK or the National Union of Students, although I note that those groups met my predecessor at a more urgent stage of the Bill. However, I am happy to have further such discussions with them. On the points made about student voters, I note that only 13% of halls of residence currently use block registration. That is instructive, as it suggests that there are alternative methods. It is vital to treat young people as adults who can and ought to register in their own right and under their own responsibility.

On other ways that we are working with groups in broader society, the Northern Ireland experience is helping us plan activities. We are working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote to increase understanding of the importance of voting and the process of registering to vote; I have done such events in Norwich, and I think it is important to do so.

We are continuing all those efforts to drive up registration rates as we move towards IER. To do so, we need partnerships with a range of organisations in the private, state, voluntary and community sectors. As I said, I welcome and appreciate all the good points made in this debate. I shall be speaking to the Electoral Commission later this week, as I do regularly as part of this work, and I shall impress on it as part of its responsibilities to communicate about registration to the broader public—hon. Members will know that that is one responsibility of the EC—the good points made in this debate.

In conclusion, the Government are fully committed to doing what we can to increase voter registration levels. There is no silver bullet solution. I do not think that increasing democratic engagement is the Government’s responsibility. To borrow words from the Scripts’ recent song “Hall of Fame”, I think it is a question for students, teachers, politicians and preachers. It is also a question for parliamentarians, parents, carers, role models and officials from political parties. We must provide people with compelling reasons to vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

4. What his policy is on the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

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

The boundary commissions are continuing with the boundary review in accordance with the legislation that requires them to report before October 2013.

[Jim Dobbin]

Yesterday’s coalition renewal document, “The Coalition: together in the national interest”, includes a vote on the boundary change proposals for constituencies. I know that the Minister is to answer, but I would like to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister will campaign for a no vote.

[Miss Smith]

I think that the parties within the Government have made their positions clear on the matter. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there will be a vote, it will take place, and I suppose that is that.

[Mr McKenzie]

Does the Minister believe that it is right to redraw parliamentary boundaries on the basis of data from which millions of eligible voters are missing?

[Miss Smith]

It is the Government’s intention to proceed with the individual electoral registration programme, which will increase and improve the accuracy of the registers we work with. It is really important that we all continue with the support that there is across the House for those proposals.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend guarantee that the next general election will be fought according to the new parliamentary boundaries recommended by the Electoral Commission, and that it will be fought with individual voter registration?

[Miss Smith]

I think that the answer to my hon. Friend is best given within the point that there will be a vote on those proposals, as I think he knows. On individual electoral registration, I can confirm that the programme is proceeding as planned, and I am happy to give him further details on that.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

If the Lib Dems are still voting against the recommended parliamentary boundary changes, should this House not have the earliest opportunity to vote on the issue, thereby possibly saving unnecessary public expenditure at a time when the public finances are limited, and when should such a vote take place?

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry to be boring, but there will be a vote on those proposals.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that under-represented groups are included on the electoral register.

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

As I mentioned in my previous answer, it is important that we ensure that all those who should be are included on the electoral register, including the under-represented groups to which the hon. Lady’s question refers.

The Government, politicians, parties, electoral administrators and plenty of others have a role to play in encouraging people to register to vote. The Government are committed to doing all they can to maximise registration, including among under-registered groups. They are looking to modernise the system to make it as convenient as possible and are running various sets of data-related pilots to find out how we can best identify unregistered groups and add them to the register.

[Jessica Morden]

Does the Minister agree that the annual canvass is a really important part of ensuring that under-represented groups are on the register and that any attempts to water down the frequency of the canvass, or give powers to Ministers to abolish it altogether, should be avoided?

[Miss Smith]

Our current plans for electoral registration do include the annual canvass, which will continue to be used for as long as it remains the best way to ensure that the register is as complete and accurate as possible.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify what penalty, if any, will be imposed on those who fail to return an individual electoral registration form?

[Miss Smith]

There will be a set of penalties that relate to those actions. I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend so that he gets the fullest possible detail.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

14. When does the Minister expect a national online electoral registration system to be in place?

[Miss Smith]

Many Members take an interest in that issue. I do not have a specific date to give the hon. Gentleman. The Government are looking at the matter and I shall be happy to discuss it further with him.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We all want a register that is complete and accurate. The Electoral Commission’s recent damning report on the move to individual voter registration in Northern Ireland is extremely worrying, yet the Government have decided to speed up the implementation of individual voter registration and to remove the safeguards that Labour put in place.

All this is happening at a time when local authorities are having to make record cuts, including to the amount that they can devote to electoral registration. Given the criticism levelled by the Electoral Commission’s report, what extra are the Government considering to avoid a repeat in the rest of the UK of the experiences in Northern Ireland, which could see millions of eligible voters dumped off the electoral register?

[Miss Smith]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting some of what the report says. The evidence from the report is that continuous registration is working for the majority of the population in Northern Ireland. The report notes that many of the key lessons from the experience in Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the proposals. It also states:

“The findings from this research do not undermine the principle of individual electoral registration or mean that the introduction of this system in Great Britain will necessarily lead to similar declines in accuracy and completeness.”

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

5. What assessment he has made of the work of the Commission on Devolution in Wales.