Election Systems

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

On 16 March 2021, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House that the Government would be introducing legislation to change the voting system for all police and crime commissioners (PCCs), combined authority mayors, and the Mayor of London.

This legislation, due to be brought forward when parliamentary time allowed, would see the voting systems change from the confusing and over-complicated supplementary vote system to the tried and tested first-past-the-post system.

I am pleased to announce that the Government intend to bring forward these changes in an amendment to the Elections Bill at Committee stage. Including these changes in the Elections Bill will ensure that they are implemented ahead of the next scheduled PCC elections in May 2024. This timetable will give good notice to all future candidates and electoral administrators of the change in voting system to first-past-the- post well in advance of these elections, in accordance with Electoral Commission guidance.

Additionally, I can announce that the voting system for local authority mayors in England, which are also currently on the supplementary vote system, will be changed to first past the post. This will ensure that all mayoral elections across England will have a consistent voting system.

These changes will allow us to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to continue supporting the first-past-the-post system. Given that two thirds of voters voted in favour of retaining first-past-the-post for parliamentary elections in the 2011 nationwide referendum, these changes also reflect the view of the British people.

In this May’s London mayoral elections, the supplementary vote system saw hundreds of thousands void, wasted or blank votes cast, reflecting voter confusion and the complex system. In a speech to this House in 1931, Winston Churchill when describing transferable voting said “the decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”

The supplementary vote system as used in England and Wales is found nowhere else in the world. The nearest similar system where voters rank up to three candidates—the contingent vote system—is used only in Sri Lanka; by contrast, first past the post is the world’s most widely used electoral system. The Government believe that first past the post is a more straightforward way of electing representatives, which is transparent to both voters and administrators and results in a more accessible system.



The change to first past the post will provide clear local accountability in a readily understandable way, making it easier for voters to express a clear choice: the person chosen to represent a local area will be the one who directly receives the most votes.

[HCWS289]

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Brendan O’Hara]

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[Chloe Smith]

[The Chair]

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

May I initially seek your guidance, Chairman? Would you like me to cover all the clause stand parts and to respond, as it were, in advance to amendments? Or would you like me to return to respond to hon. Members once they have spoken to their amendments?

[The Chairman]

That is a perfectly reasonable question from the Minister. As all matters are grouped in one group, she may, in her opening remarks, refer to all amendments and clauses standing part, but of course she will have an opportunity to answer points made by Members when they introduce their amendments and new clauses. Or should I say “he”—[Interruption.] I should say “they”, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has a new clause as well. It is perfectly in order for the Minister to now address everything that is on the amendment paper.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much indeed, Dame Eleanor. I shall endeavour to do that, and I hope you will bear with me while I ensure that I cover all that material.

Let me begin at the beginning, with clause 1. There is consensus throughout the House that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has proven to be not fit for purpose and has been damaging to effective and accountable government. The experience of 2019 in particular showed us that the Act was flawed and ran counter to core constitutional principles, and was therefore damaging to the flexible functioning of our constitution. It was unique legislation and it did not work. We saw how, in 2017, a Government who commanded a majority in the House of Commons were able to call an early general election with ease, irrespective of the Act’s intentions.

The events of 2019 then demonstrated how the 2011 Act could obstruct democracy by making it harder to hold a necessary election. The Act’s prescriptive constraints, such as the threshold of a supermajority requirement for a general election and the statutory motions of no confidence, created an untenable situation in which the Government could neither pass vital legislation through Parliament nor call a new election. The result was parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our Government. The introduction of bespoke primary legislation that circumvented the Act and let us hold a general election in 2019 was the final indictment of the Act.

The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister. The key argument is that in doing so it will help to deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the dissolving of Parliament. Clause 1 repeals the 2011 Act and in doing so delivers, as I have already mentioned, on both a Government manifesto commitment and a Labour manifesto commitment to do so. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. That means that Parliament will, once more, be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. By doing this, the clause delivers on the Bill’s purpose, which is to reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible. The clause is clear in its intention and in its effect. As the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act put it, the drafting of clause 2 is

“sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the constitutional position”

that existed prior to the passing of the 2011 Act.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend help the House in respect of whether the Government acknowledge the existence of the Lascelles principles? If they do, what is the impact of clause 2 on those principles?

[Chloe Smith]

Of course the Government and I acknowledge the existence of those principles; they are a historical fact in and of themselves. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that we have said consistently throughout the Bill’s preparation and progress so far that we believe that now is the time for the underpinning conventions of the prerogative power to be debated and, indeed, restated. The Government have contributed to that by publishing some Dissolution principles at the beginning of the Bill’s journey. We think those principles form part of a dialogue that continues not only between the Government and Parliament but with the wider public as well. I hope that the work of this Committee today and the work in the other place will together form part of the continuation of that historical tradition of there being an understanding of the conventions that underpin the prerogative.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does not the fact that the Prime Minister requests that the monarch take steps so that an election can happen show an understanding of the Lascelles principles? Indeed, there could be other circumstances, yet unforeseen, in which a request is refused.

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, we believe that that is the case; that is the flexibility inherent within the constitutional arrangements that we seek to revive. That brings me back to the express purpose of clause 2, which delivers on the Bill’s purpose, which is, as I said, to reset back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible. We believe that is clear in our intention to revive the prerogative.

Naturally, I recognise that the revival of the prerogative has been subject to academic debate. For example, as Professor Mark Elliott, professor of public law at the University of Cambridge said:

“Given the scheme of the Bill, it is perfectly clear that the prerogative will be revived and that, from the entry into force of the Bill, the prerogative power of dissolution will once again be exercisable.”

Furthermore, even if any doubts remained from some of the academic debate that has taken place, as the former First Parliamentary Counsel, Sir Stephen Laws, said in his evidence to the Joint Committee, the academic debate is something of

“a red herring, because…it is perfectly plain that the intention of the Act is to restore the situation to what it was before the 2011 Act, and therefore the law will then be indistinguishable from what it was before”.

The Government are, then, confident of the intention and practical effect of the clause. A letter that I sent recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) sets out why we believe that there is a sound legal basis for that position; I hope that Members may have had a chance to see that letter, which I publicised to right hon. and hon. Members. By making express provision to revive the prerogative powers, clause 2 returns us to the tried and tested constitutional arrangements, so I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 3 is necessary and proportionate for the avoidance of doubt and to preserve the long-standing position that the prerogative powers to dissolve one Parliament and call another are non-justiciable. Those prerogative powers are inherently political in nature and, as such, are not suitable for review by the courts. Any judgment on their exercise should be left to the electorate at the polling booth. That was the view of the courts, as expressed by, for example, Lord Roskill in the landmark GCHQ case in 1985: he considered that the courts are not the place to determine whether Parliament should be dissolved on one date or another. That position was recommended more recently in the independent review of administrative law, published in March this year, which noted that clause 3 can be regarded as a “codifying clause” that

“simply restates the position that everyone understood obtained before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed”.

As I mentioned earlier, clause 3 has been drafted with regard for the direction of travel in case law. Over the years since the GCHQ case, some of the prerogative powers previously considered to be non-justiciable have been held by the courts to be justiciable. The purpose of the clause is therefore to be as clear as possible about the no-go sign around the dissolution and calling of Parliament. It is carefully drafted to respect the message from the courts that only

“the most clear and explicit words”

can exclude their jurisdiction. This is a matter for Parliament to decide; that view accords with the majority of the Joint Committee, which said that

“Parliament should be able to designate certain matters as ones which are to be resolved in the political rather than the judicial sphere”.

We have made our intentions clear so that the courts will understand that that is the clear will of Parliament. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one benefit of clause 3, as well as highlighting all the issues that she has just mentioned, is that it makes it abundantly clear that Parliament is supreme?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, that is right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all hon. and right hon. Members who served on the Joint Committee and spent a considerable amount of time looking at these issues. That is the kind of consideration that we ought to give to our constitutional affairs rather than taking them in a hurry—a point that I was making earlier. Let me acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point and thank him and others for the work that they did.

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

On clause 3, may I take the Minister back to the inclusion of the word “purported” and, in particular, draw her attention to paragraph 166 and the comments of Baroness Hale in relation to the Joint Committee report? She says that

“it looks as if it is saying, “Well, even if what we did”—

that is what the Government did—

“was not within the power that you have been given by the statute, the courts can’t do anything about it.”

She goes on to say:

“If that is the case, the courts would be very worried about that, because it would mean that the Government—the Prime Minister—had done something that was, at least arguably, not within its powers.”

There is some force and logic in the argument of Lady Hale, is there not?

[Chloe Smith]

This is a good opportunity for me to be absolutely clear about the reference to the word “purported” in this clause. This has been included to take account of previous judicial decisions—in particular the cases of Anisminic Ltd v. the Foreign Compensation Commission 1969, and Privacy International v. the Investigatory Powers Tribunal 2019. In the latter, the expectation was expressed that the drafting legislation would have regard to the case law and ensure that the drafting made it clear if “purported” decisions—that is decisions that would be considered by a court to be invalid—were intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. What clause 3 does is present an opportunity to Parliament to be absolutely clear on whether it thinks that such things should be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. It is the Government’s position and presentation that they ought to be, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in that.

[Mr Carmichael]

In the interests of clarity, is the Minister telling the House that the Government are asking Parliament to give them the power to do things that exceed the powers given to them and that nobody should be able to gainsay them?

[Chloe Smith]

I am proposing that the House understands the use of the phrase “purported”, which, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does—I have no dispute with him on that point—and that hon. Members join us in acknowledging that it is right to be aware of the case law and to respond to it. The decision in front of us is whether purported decisions relating to this area should or should not be included in clause 3. It is our contention that they should be, because we believe that the entire area of dissolution and the calling of Parliament is intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. That is a perfectly legitimate question to put to Parliament. It is for us here in this Chamber to decide on that, and the reason for doing so would be that we think that such decisions are political rather that judicial in their nature. Fundamentally, the check on the exercise of power is for the electorate to decide on rather than the courts. Therefore, as I have said, the function of clause 3 is to set that out very clearly. I will now move on to clause 4, which deals with five-year maximum terms.

The purpose here is to ensure that a Parliament lasts no longer than five years. We do that by providing that Parliament will automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. In doing so, the clause returns us to the general position before the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was enacted. We are confident that five years is the appropriate length for the maximum parliamentary term. Our Parliaments have seldom lasted a full five years, and, in practice, they have often been dissolved sooner. In fact, we can see that parliamentary terms have very often developed their own rhythm. For example, from the history books, we can see that a strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved out of political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But it is not actually five years; it is five years and a bit, is it not? As the Septennial Act 1716 did, it goes from the date of the first sitting of the new Parliament. It means that, if we stick with this, we will have the longest period from election to election of any democracy in the world. Would it not be better for the period from election to election to be at most five years?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my remarks in respect of his amendment, which I will endeavour to come to after I have worked through all the clauses.

The scheme that we are proposing is the right one and I will come in a moment to why I think that that is the case when compared with other technical methods of achieving a five-year term that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. This clause provides for a maximum parliamentary term of five years from the date that Parliament first met, so we measure five years from the date of first meeting to the Dissolution of Parliament, and that is the Government’s proposition. We think that that provides the right balance of stability, flexibility and accountability that is entailed in returning to the arrangements that allow for a general election earlier than that. On that basis, I recommend that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

I shall speak very briefly to clause 5. It introduces the schedule to the Bill, which makes provision for the consequential amendments that are needed to ensure that other legislation operates effectively once the 2011 Act has been repealed and we return to the status quo ante. The consequential amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. They remove references to the Act in legislation and ensure that, after the repeal of the 2011 Act, other legislation that links to it still works. For example, in repealing the 2011 Act, they reflect the fact that there will no longer be fixed-term Parliaments, so the concept of an early general election would no longer exist in law.

Clause 5 also provides that the repeal of the 2011 Act by clause 1 does not affect the amendments and repeals made by the schedule to that Act. This ensures that essential provisions are not lost. It allows us to modify changes made by the 2011 Act and ensure the smooth running of elections by retaining sensible improvements made by that Act or subsequent to that Act. I know that those are some topics that we will come back to a little later as we progress through our debate this evening.

The schedule also makes a small number of minor changes to ensure the smooth running of elections. In short, this clause is necessary to ensure that electoral law and other related parts of the statute book continue to function smoothly. As such, I recommend that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 is the one that we all know and love that deals with extent, early commencement and short title. It confirms that the territorial extent of the Bill is the United Kingdom, except for a very small number of amendments in the schedule where the extent is more limited. The clause ensures that the Bill has an early commencement, meaning that it comes into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent, and it provides that the short title of the Bill will be the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2021.

That gives me an opportunity to explain that the Government have agreed with the recommendation of the Joint Committee that a Bill of constitutional significance that seeks to put in place arrangements that deliver legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process of dissolving one Parliament and calling another should be titled accordingly. The short title now reflects the purpose of the Bill and will help to ensure that it is clearly understood and that successive Parliaments are able to discern the intended effect of the legislation. I therefore propose that this clause stand part of the Bill. Mr Evans, would you like me also to make a remark about the schedule and then turn to the amendments?

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

indicated assent.

[Chloe Smith]

In that case, Mr Evans, I am going to carry on until you tell me otherwise. There is an amount to get through, but I hope to do so.

The schedule provides for a number of changes to primary and secondary legislation to ensure the effective operation of the statute book when the 2011 Act is repealed. These amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. The schedule works with clause 6. As I have explained, we want to make sure that references to the 2011 Act work elsewhere in other legislation. There are some key changes in the schedule to draw to the attention of the House.

The first is to rule 1 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which sets out the election timetable. The Bill amends that rule to ensure that the trigger for the election process in the case of a parliamentary general election is the Dissolution of Parliament, following the recommendation of the FTPA Joint Committee.

The second change provides additional certainty in relation to the election process. The election writ is deemed to have been received the day after the Dissolution of Parliament. This will allow returning officers to begin arrangements the day after the election writs are issued, enabling all constituencies to begin making the necessary preparations, even in the event that the physical delivery of the writ is delayed. Similar deeming amendments are included for by-elections.

The third update is to section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1985. Under the existing legislation, in the event of the demise of the Crown after Dissolution or up to seven days before, polling day is postponed by a fortnight. The 1985 Act provides no discretion or flexibility to further alter the date of the poll. This Bill provides limited discretion for the Prime Minister to move polling day up to seven days either side of this default 14-day postponement, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council. This is beneficial because it ensures that enough flexibility is built into the system should such specific and unlikely circumstances ever occur. There is also flexibility to move the date set for the first meeting of Parliament in such circumstances—again, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council.

The last key change that I will highlight in this section is to the Recall of MPs Act 2015, which is amended to ensure that there continues to be provision to prevent or terminate recall petitions close to a general election to avoid redundant by-elections. This means that there is no requirement to trigger a recall petition if the last possible polling day for a general election, based on Parliament running its full term, is less than six months away, and a recall petition is to be terminated when Parliament is dissolved. For the reasons that I have set out, I recommend that the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

If it remains convenient to you, Mr Evans, I will now start to work my way through the amendments that have been tabled, but I remain at your disposal to return to the clauses if hon. Members would like me to respond after they have spoken to their amendments.

New clause 2 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). As I understand it, it seeks to provide a role for the House of Commons in approving an early general election by simple majority vote. This would adjust the arrangements that exist under the 2011 Act by removing the two-thirds majority requirement. It would in itself be a departure from the prior constitutional norm, whereby the Prime Minister could request an early Dissolution of Parliament in order to test the view of the electorate. As we have already begun to touch on in this afternoon’s debate, the deadlock and paralysis created by the 2011 Act did rather demonstrate why a prescriptive statutory approach does not work. Instead, what we are doing in the Bill is returning to a set of widely understood constitutional conventions and practices. Those tried and tested arrangements are the right ones, and this new clause would run against the grain of those arrangements.

It is, after all, a core underlying principle that the authority of the Government and the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, are derived from the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The 2011 Act attached confidence and the decision of the Prime Minister to call an election to statutory motions, which gave the Commons a direct say in Dissolution, but it is also possible to argue that those arrangements hindered the function of democracy by making it harder to have necessary elections. Instead, the House should indeed be able to express its view on confidence, but in a much freer manner. We do not need the prescriptive statutory approach of either the 2011 Act or, I fear, this new clause.

New clause 2(5) would require the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the date of the election within 30 days of the House approving a motion for an election. I would argue that this is not necessary. Under the Bill, once a general election has been called and Dissolution takes place, the election timetable in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes the provision for the timing of an election very clear. Again, rather than introducing prescriptive arrangements, we believe that we should return to tried and tested standards whereby it is a core principle that the Prime Minister must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. New measures around that concept are not needed.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

If a Prime Minister were to request a Dissolution that was proper but was perceived to be for political advantage and was premature, would not the remedy be in the hands and judgment of the electorate?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, that is precisely the point, and that underlies a number of our considerations. In the place of a prescriptive statutory scheme, we can place our trust instead in the ability of people to choose against the behaviour that they observe from parties in Parliament.

Let me turn to new clause 5, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. It would require the House to start sitting 14 days after a general election. Although I agree that Parliament should meet as soon as possible after polling day, it is not necessary to codify that in legislation. Fundamentally, this is a similar type of argument. It is difficult to reconcile more extensive codification with the scheme of the Bill, and I shall set out the reasons why.

First, we think it is unnecessary to allow for such a 14-day period. Before and under the 2011 Act, the date of the first meeting of Parliament was set by the sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. In practice, Parliament has met within one to two weeks of a general election on all but two occasions since 1950. There are compelling practical reasons for a new Government to call a new Parliament as soon as possible. As I put it earlier, no Government can manage without supply. As the Joint Committee put it,

“without…the authorisation of the Commons to spend money…a modern administration could manage months at best”.

Ultimately, having won an election, any new Government would want to assemble Parliament to pass their Queen’s Speech at the earlier opportunity, and be able to move on to legislation and supply.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

If the largest party was trying to get a coalition, that might take more than 14 days. Is there provision in the legislation to cover that?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that goes to the new clause, which is that a Government would, I would have thought, want to assemble faster than 14 days, but there can be occasions when more than 14 days may be needed. Therefore, both these arguments point to flexibility, and that is my principal concern about the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

All right then, if it is the simplest way of doing it, what is the last date that the next general election can be held if all this is carried as the Minister says?

[Chloe Smith]

With respect, that is not the right quiz question—the right quiz question is whether, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the period would be five years plus 25 days. That would, I believe, arise from his amendment, because he is not counting the length of the election campaign, whereas our provision is five years from first sitting to last sitting, so we are trying to measure the life of a Parliament. I am not trying to engage in maths problems; I simply think that this is the most sensible way to measure it, and I hope hon. Members might agree. [Interruption.] I am really not going to engage in maths questions beyond that. We need a clear and easily understood scheme. I think we are all agreed that it ought to be five years, and we are dealing with how to achieve that. The Government’s proposition is that it should be, as I say, from five years after Parliament has first met. That is important.

Let me turn to the pair of amendments that relate to the shortening of the election timetable: new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. I am absolutely sure that there will be some very strong arguments put in this area. To try to help the Committee, I will set out why we have our current timetable and then seek to address what I would anticipate to be some of the core arguments that right hon. and hon. Members will raise.

The current timetable was introduced in 2013 through the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which absorbed fundamental shifts brought about through having postal votes on demand and individual electoral registration. As I have explained, the Bill seeks to return us to the status quo ante while retaining sensible changes that have been made since 2011 to enable the smooth running of elections, which are, in my view, of benefit to voters. The current timetable is one of those changes. It provides a balance between allowing sufficient time to run the polls effectively and for the public to be well informed, while not preventing Parliament from avoiding sitting for any longer than is necessary, which is a very important consideration.

On the requirements for running polls effectively, the 25 days working days are necessary to deliver elections, which are now often more complex than at any other point in our history, for reasons, as I mentioned, to do with postal voting on demand, but also online individual electoral registration. That was a fundamental constitutional change that enabled increasingly higher numbers of last-minute applications. To illustrate that, at the most recent general election almost 660,000 applications were made on the last day possible. Before 2000, as I said, there was no postal voting on demand, and it has since grown in numbers to represent nearly 20% of registered electors. Both things increased the complexity and demands of an election timetable.

The amendments refer to weekends and bank holidays in the election period. Local authority electoral services teams who do this work are already often working weekends and overtime to make elections work successfully. I also note that elections do not just rely on local authorities and their staff; there is a significant commercial element to their delivery through many suppliers, including, but not limited to, the software for maintaining the registers, and the printing and postage of paperwork such as the poll cards, ballot papers and postal votes. There is very little room for error on all that. Creating and maintaining the capacity to deliver it can be extremely challenging, especially at short notice. Weekends and bank holidays are not necessarily in our gift.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is of course making an excellent speech. The intent behind the new clause, which I will explain more fully when I go through it in detail, is to do exactly what she was calling for earlier, which is to have a clearer and more easily understood scheme. At the moment, it is not clear and not easy to understand, because it states that election periods are 25 days when they may not be: the last election was 36 days. We need more transparency, and that is part of what the new clause is calling for.

[Chloe Smith]

Absolutely. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that we have not necessarily observed a 25 working day timetable. For example, the 2017 election, known to have been rather a long one, was considerably longer than that minimum statutory period. It is important, as my right hon. Friend says, to be as clear as possible on this point.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend feel that the debate on this presents the opportunity for a further piece of work on the period from when a Prime Minister dissolves Parliament to when the 25 days should start? I appreciate that this Bill is not really the appropriate moment for that, but does she agree that there should be further study and work to decide whether the timeframe should be tidied up more before we get to the 25 days?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Some of what he refers to is not necessarily within a statutory scheme but within, for example, the processes of this House, but he makes a valuable point. We do need to look at the evidence in this area; that will clearly help us. There is already some written work that I would commend to right hon. and hon. Members. They could look at the most recent report of the Association of Electoral Administrators, which said, in July, that less time would be significantly problematic and that there was only so much that could be done at once. It made the point again in written evidence to the Joint Committee, saying that

“it would be catastrophic for everyone involved…if the statutory election period were to be shortened…It would create a significant risk of the election failing and not being delivered and increase the risk of disenfranchising potential electors”.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Just for clarification on those comments, are the electoral services referring to the 25 working days, not a period leading up to that, and saying that they are confident that they can always achieve their work in the short campaign as defined, not relying on any period of time before the short campaign starts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I believe that to be the case, although of course I would not wish to speak for the AEA. I really do commend its report to the Committee to enable it to see in much more detail the challenges that there are in delivering elections within the timetable that currently exists. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, broadly yes—that set of comments is referring to the statutory timetable rather than any time before it.

[Mr Goodwill]

We would all wish to maximise participation in elections, and the practicalities of overseas voters, postal voters and voter registration are very important, but do we also need to look at the possibility that as campaigns go on and on, we might get campaign fatigue, which might well result in fewer people casting their ballots because they are sick to death of the election going on for what seems to be forever?

[Chloe Smith]

I am always sympathetic to that point. There is always a risk when any of us have to bang on too long that we simply get boring, and I can already apologise to the House for having taken 50 minutes of tonight’s Committee in trying to make my way through the material I am obliged to cover. My right hon. Friend makes a wise point, and it is one of the balances that have to be looked at in this discussion. That is one reason why he and others have tabled amendments.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On the wider point about how quickly an election takes place, can I take it as read from the Minister that the Government will always immediately move a writ for a by-election, and not drag it on any longer than usual?

[Chloe Smith]

If only I had the ability to give the hon. Gentleman that promise, I think I would have promoted myself to Chief Whip and other positions in a single move. I do not think I should be drawn on the dark ways of the Chief Whip and the usual channels. Instead, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker).

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I want to take my hon. Friend back to the point about 2013 and why the period became 25 working days. She mentioned postal votes and electronic registration, but surely the clue is in the title: electronic registration. Anything done electronically is supposed to be much quicker and clearer. Does the legislation also take into account future ways of voting, particularly for overseas voters who may want eventually to do it electronically?

[Chloe Smith]

Again, some incredibly thoughtful points are being put. My hon. Friend is right to observe that the introduction of online registration has enormously sped up how people can register, and he draws me to talk about two things. The first is to acknowledge what needs to be done to ensure that overseas voters can cast their ballots more easily. There is an entire field of working going on there, which we will discuss more in consideration of the Elections Bill—I look forward to seeing him in the debate—but a general point sits in the discussion of these amendments, which is how we ensure voters are getting what they need out of the election process.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I will not give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) again, if he will forgive me. I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) a go.

[Aaron Bell]

My hon. Friend said a moment ago that she could not speak exactly for the AEA, but she will know from the open letter that it wrote to her that it wants even more time. It is proposing an extended 30-day timetable to

“increase capacity, introduce resilience and ensure electors are put first.”

That is all very well, but the point of an election is not to have the most perfect election imaginable, but to get the right result efficiently, so that everyone can cast their vote, but the country can be allowed to move on and resolve whatever tensions led to the election. The ever lengthening timetable is not in the national interest, let alone the interest of individual electors or individual candidates.

[Chloe Smith]

I am happy to confirm from this Dispatch Box that the Government’s position is to maintain the electoral timetable as it stands—I am not proposing an extension or reduction—but I draw the threads together as follows. We need to ensure that the system works for voters, and that includes them having enough time to register to vote, to receive their ballot papers, to return their ballot papers and to decide on the candidates in each constituency—we have a constituency-based system, after all. We also need to be able to make the same point about supporting candidates to fulfil their part of what needs to happen in an election timetable, both those who stand for parties and those who stand as independents. We have to think through these things if we legislate here.

In response to right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled the amendments, I suggest there is perhaps a space here for looking further into these issues. There would be an opportunity to have some research drawn together on the tensions between voter engagement, the resilience of polls and the needs of the country for a period when it does not have a Parliament or MPs able to help constituents. Although the Government continue to hold the powers needed to carry out essential business and respond to sudden, unexpected or distressing events, none the less the Government do after all need Parliament to be sitting. If needed, I will return to those points after right hon. and hon. Members have spoken, but I will leave new clause 1 and amendment 3 there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I am afraid I have not got time to give way; I need to draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr being able to say more about his amendment, which he has not yet had a chance to do. It would be rather good at this point if the Committee heard from others, rather than me. I draw my remarks to a close. I hope I have covered all the points on the new clauses, the schedule and the amendments. I commend the Bill as a whole, unamended, to the Committee.

[Cat Smith]

The Bill does two things: it repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act; and reinstates—or attempts to reinstate—the status quo that existed before 2011. The Labour party supports the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which we committed to in our 2019 manifesto, because the Act undermined motions of no-confidence and removed conventions around confidence motions. The concept of fixed terms, however, is not a bad one, and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. When the Act was introduced, the then Prime Minister was clear that it transferred power away from the Prime Minister and to Parliament. By virtue of that, the Bill is clearly a power grab by a Prime Minister who thinks that one rule applies to him and the rest of us can just wish for it.

New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), would make Dissolution subject to a vote in the House of Commons. At the heart of the new clause is the question whether a Government should have the power to decide when an election takes place or whether elections should be fixed. The democratic position to take is that terms should be fixed. Indeed, that is what happens in our local councils in England and in the Parliaments in Scotland and Wales. In fact, in most parliamentary democracies, Dissolution is controlled by the legislature with varying degrees of involvement from the Executive.

In the UK, with our strong tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament should be central to any decision to dissolve, for three main reasons. First, there is the electoral advantage. If only the Prime Minister knows when an election will be held, only the Prime Minister will know when spending limits kick in. That plays to the advantage of the incumbent political party. It is also possible to bury bad news by calling an election before such news hits. If, for instance, there was to be an inquiry on covid and they felt that would be bad news for them, they could choose to go early to avoid negative headlines. Secondly, a vote in Parliament for Dissolution would remove any possibility of dragging the Crown into the politics of the decision. I am sure no Members of the House would like to see Her Majesty dragged into that. Thirdly, it would render the Bill’s ouster clause unnecessary, whether that clause is effective or not. The easiest way to keep the courts out of Dissolution decisions is to leave Dissolution in Parliament’s hands. It is impossible to imagine the crack through which the courts could intervene in a duly recorded decision of the House of Commons on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I apologise, Dame Rosie, that I have been bobbing up and down this afternoon wanting to speak and not wanting to speak, but I think that some of our discussion on the new clauses needs to be teased out a little more. First, I would like to hear from the Minister in response to the point on which I tried to intervene on her, which was about the consequential effects, particularly with regard to referendums. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made a similar point about the ability of the UK Parliament essentially to take primacy over decisions already made by the devolved assemblies about the dates of elections and particularly of referendums.

Why could not the Bill have been structured in such a way that it simply stopped the Prime Minister from choosing a date on which a poll or plebiscite of some kind was already scheduled? Forcing polls or plebiscites in the devolved areas to be rescheduled instead entirely diminishes or takes away the idea that we are in some kind of union of equals and fundamentally reasserts the primacy of this place above all else. If that does not make the argument for the outcome of the referendum that I will be campaigning for, I do not know what does.

The point about setting the date of the election, which also relates to new clause 2, is particularly important. The effect will be not only that the Prime Minister alone will know the date of the next election, but that he will know all the consequent dates that fit alongside it, particularly the regulated periods, the short campaign and the long campaign. It will therefore affect the ability of parties and individual candidates—as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) said, we are all individual candidates for election—to spend money and to decide when and how to do so.

That point relates to the Elections Bill, which is about to be considered in Committee, and speaks to the piecemeal approach that this Government are very slyly taking to what is actually a very serious package of constitutional reforms that undermine democratic protections and positions that people have enjoyed across these islands for some considerable time.

That was a bit too long for an intervention, Dame Rosie, so I have taken advantage of the fact that the Committee still had a bit of time to run. As the Minister was not willing to take my intervention, I hope that in her summing up she will be able to reply to some of my points.

[Chloe Smith]

As I was advised by the Chairman of Ways and Means at the time, I endeavoured to respond to all amendments at the beginning of the debate, so I have given what I hope was the bulk of my remarks. It remains for me to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been comprehensive and thoughtful.

I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that I will look at commissioning research. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) that, as set out in the response to the Joint Committee’s report, there is ongoing dialogue to be had on conventions. I suggest to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that we might meet if he would like to go further over the detail that he requested; I will even extend that invitation to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I assure them both that I am already discussing these matters with colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

I urge the Committee to agree that the clauses should stand part of the Bill and that the amendments are not necessary. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Revival of prerogative powers to dissolve Parliament and to call a new Parliament

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage, and I thank you and your colleagues for your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am also grateful to all those who contributed in Committee and on Second Reading, and I particularly thank those who served on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose expert scrutiny has informed our approach and improved the Bill.

We have been fortunate to have had an enriching debate today, including on the conventions that underpin the Dissolution of one Parliament and the calling of another. As I mentioned earlier, that dialogue will continue through the remaining stages of the Bill as it passes out of the elected House and goes into the other place. During its passage, the Government have at all times listened with care to the concerns raised and the thoughts posed, and I reassure the House that this is a focused, careful Bill that will return us to the long-standing constitutional arrangements that have served successive Governments and Parliaments and have ensured effective, responsive, accountable politics in which the voters are supreme. All the flexibility encapsulated in that is essential to our parliamentary democracy. This Bill restores that constitutional balance, and I commend it to the House.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship at this stage of the proceedings, Madam Deputy Speaker, when so much more still awaits us if only we have the chance to get to it.

The first point to make is that this is not the right place to debate Prorogation. This is a short and narrowly focused Bill concerning the ending of one Parliament and the beginning of a new one, and the process of getting from one to the other, not the ending of a parliamentary Session. Therefore, the Government’s view is that expanding the Bill to cover Prorogation would not be appropriate.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

So soon?

[Owen Thompson]

I just wanted to ask a brief question. If this is not the right place for this topic to be debated, where is the right place for it to be debated?

[Chloe Smith]

How wonderful to be pre-empted on a core remark that I was going to make anyway. What I ought to say first, however, is that while there is some similarity between the concepts of Prorogation and Dissolution—as the Clerks have observed in calling them “cognate matters”—in that they are both prerogative acts affecting the sitting of Parliament, they are, beyond that, quite distinct. Dissolution is the end of a Parliament before a general election, providing an opportunity for the electorate to exercise its judgment on the Government of the day. Prorogation is simply the formal ending of a parliamentary Session. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee wrote to me recently saying that there was

“no read across from prorogation and dissolution”,

and I agree with that.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 expressly did not affect the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. Our Bill to repeal that Act, which is what we are considering today in Committee, therefore does not touch on matters of Prorogation. To do that would significantly widen the scope of the Bill beyond the manifesto commitments of this side of the House and those of the other side of the House, who were clear in their manifesto that they wished to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It would even go beyond the short title of this Bill. Therefore, it is inappropriate to put such measures in the Bill.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but it is not wholly accurate to say that the Bill does not relate to Prorogation. If she has regard to clause 3 and its inclusion of the words “or purported” in relation to the exercise of prerogative powers, she will be aware that there are some who feel that that raises the question of justiciability in relation to the Miller and Cherry cases. Is that not in fact an instance where the Bill does touch on Prorogation?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful point, but I think he is incorrect. In my view, clause 3 does not do that. The intention of the clause is much more specifically related to Dissolution decisions, and it is my entire argument here from the Dispatch Box that we are dealing today with Dissolution, not with Prorogation, and that the two should be kept quite separate.

[Mr Carmichael]

That being the case, why do the Government’s own explanatory notes on the Bill refer to the Miller and Cherry cases?

[Chloe Smith]

Because clause 3 is careful, as the explanatory notes set out, to absorb recent case law, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want us to do. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that that is important, because he has given us a tour de force of the history in this area. The point still stands, none the less, that clause 3 is about Dissolution, having had regard to relevant case law. That does not make it about Prorogation, as much as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) might wish it to. It is not about Prorogation.

I ought to take this moment to reflect on what we are actually voting on today. The hon. Member for Rhondda has suggested that there might almost be a trap here. I hesitate to suggest that he is laying a trap for Government Members to vote on. That would hardly be in his character, I am sure. However, a few suggestions have been made in the Chamber this afternoon that, if Government Members were to vote against his motion right here, right now, we would be saying that Prorogation was in fact justiciable. I think I can answer that one fairly clearly in saying that we are voting on an instruction to this Committee here today that we should have leave to make provision relating to the Prorogation of Parliament. I am really doing nothing more there than reading from the Order Paper, so we can be quite clear what today’s vote consists of.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I will give way one last time, and I am sure the intervention will be good.

[Patrick Grady]

I wonder whether the Minister might just indulge the House and express the Government’s opinion on the hon. Member for Rhondda’s amendment, given that the Government seem to oppose our getting a chance to discuss it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very narrow debate on the instruction. The Minister can of course speak about the content of the instruction on the matter of Prorogation, but not on the amendment itself.

[Chloe Smith]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

So will the Minister give way to me instead?

[Chloe Smith]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you. The question then is: if not now, when? That has still not been answered. If we are not to debate the matter today, I presume that the Government still believe that Prorogation should not be justiciable, so when are we going to discuss legislative measures to deal with Prorogation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Well, indeed. “If not now, when” is always a good question, and better people than me have put it. This instruction has been laid by the hon. Gentleman, who goes back a long time in this House. He and I have had constitutional battles on the Floor of the House for about 10 years, and I am always delighted to do battle with him. I may concede to him in some cases that he is a better hon. Gentleman than I am. However, the point today, in answer to his question, is that his instruction seeks to widen the scope of the Bill considerably and at this stage I do not think that hon. Members could be fully clear about the extent of his vision for such a change. I do not think it is clear, beyond just the one amendment today, what he may have in mind to discuss about Prorogation. I do not think it is fully clear from this half hour of quite warm-tempered debate what other hon. Members and right hon. Members have in mind to change about Prorogation. This instruction could leave the field of Prorogation open of course to further debate—that is its point—amendment and qualification. Of course, that must be its point, but all of that is somewhat larger than is revealed by today’s amendment. I would be a little surprised if hon. Members wanted to vote with him on a motion that does not give any more time than that for consideration of a very important area of our constitution.

Let me point out how much time we have taken to get to what we are doing today on Dissolution. There have been manifesto commitments from both sides of the House, as I have said. There have been detailed reports from Committees of this House and the other place, as well as a high degree of consensus and many years of reflection on the operation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I do not believe that a great deal of realistic notice, ahead of the amendment and this instruction, exists in respect of Prorogation. For that reason, I suggest that now is not the time for that debate, and it is not for me to suggest another time for such a debate.

The hon. Member for Rhondda raised some other points that ought to be answered. There are compelling practical reasons why we do not need to go into the territory raised here today. He raised the spectre of a Government using Prorogation simply to keep on going, but the point needs to be made that any Government would want a new parliamentary Session to begin as soon as possible to pass their Queen’s Speech at the earliest opportunity and to have supply. Quite rightly, no Government can operate without supply and they therefore need Parliament to be in existence. No Government, whether the Government of the day or a future Government, would want to introduce hurdles between the end of one parliamentary Session and another. Their purpose would be to move the legislative programme forward so that they could deliver on their commitments to the electorate. These are fundamentally important points about how Governments and Parliament work together, and I think that that is a quite reasonable answer to the points that have been made today about whether a Government could indeed prorogue forever and whether they ought to be stopped in some way.

More broadly, the Sovereign exercises the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister and that has always been the case. What I think is coming into this debate on the instruction, and may come into the discussion later if this motion were to be passed, is the concept of introducing prescriptive statutory approaches into our flexible constitutional arrangements, and I would call that unnecessary and undesirable. The whole scheme of what we are doing in the Committee for this Bill is to remove constraining and inflexible schemes and return to flexible arrangements that work well.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Is it not the case that those who wish to reopen this issue are revisiting a very dark chapter in the history of our Parliament, when Parliament decided to stand against the wishes of the British people expressed in a democratic referendum? It required the British people to reassert their will and their decision in a general election to clear the air, but is it not great that we cleared the air?

[Chloe Smith]

The point is that we have an opportunity to clear the air in regard to legislation that is highly prescriptive and has not worked. That is the aim of today; it is not to extend at relatively short notice into a very large subject for debate, for which the ground has not been properly prepared by the hon. Member for Rhondda, although I admire his spirit in trying to do so. Instead, we ought to be able to move past this instruction to change the scope of the Bill and conduct our work through Committee, thus discharging at least two manifesto commitments from either side of the House and returning our constitutional arrangements to a form of stability that works.

Elections Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I look forward to a thorough and thoughtful debate across the House. Indeed, our work in Parliament is a key pillar of our democracy, a democracy that is underpinned by free and fair elections. Like many public services across the UK, our electoral services have not been untouched by the pandemic. Earlier this year, we faced unprecedented challenges in delivering the most complex combination of polls in memory during a pandemic. Many suggested we should postpone the elections for a second time, but I was not willing to deprive people of the chance to have their say without having done everything in our power to try. That was why the Government provided an additional £32 million of funding, sourced over 5,000 volunteers to support electoral teams and took creative steps to ensure that people could cast their vote. I am proud of the ingenuity and determination displayed by so many to ensure that our citizens were able to exercise their democratic rights. That is no less than I would expect, given the passion and capability of what is often a small number of election staff in our local authorities, to whom I pay tribute today. We cannot take them, or the system, for granted.

We are the stewards of a fantastic democratic heritage. We committed in our manifesto to secure the integrity of elections, restore constitutional balance and defend our democracy against increasingly sophisticated threats. This Bill keeps our elections secure, fair, transparent and up to date. Part 1 of the Bill is about getting the basics of our elections right by updating the security and integrity of the ballot. That is why it introduces new measures that will stamp out the potential for voter fraud from our elections. There are some who suggest that this is not a problem, but I would like to disagree.

Interlinked types of fraudulent criminality are a very real threat to the integrity of our elections. Clear evidence of this was seen at the 2014 election scandal in Tower Hamlets, where the mayoral contest was declared void due to corrupt and illegal practices. The judgment in the case and the witnesses who spoke at the trial tell a story of harm and fraud that struck at an entire community and fatally undermined democracy. Recalling crowds harassing voters, one witness reported:

“I got into conversation with an elderly lady who was frightened to go in and vote and said that she had decided not to vote as a result of the intimidation.”

Another witness described her experience of having her vote stolen by a campaigner for a candidate she did not support. She recalled:

“They came to me and took my signature and then took the blank ballot paper from me. I normally go to the polling station. I told them I was used to doing it myself and didn’t understand why it was different this year.”

Crucially, although it is much harder to identify and prosecute, we know that personation was also one of the corrupt and illegal practices that took place in Tower Hamlets. The Electoral Commission has noted that

“the majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders.”

This is unacceptable. Why should criminals get two votes, or even more, and their victims lose their voices?

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Would the Minister accept that, while some of these measures might be necessary, we have only a 30% turnout in some of our elections and this could make turnout even lower due to the added bureaucracy and the added information that people will need to provide in order to cast their ballot?

[Chloe Smith]

I am pleased the hon. Lady has made that point so early in the debate. I join her, as I want everyone here to do, in welcoming turnout and in wanting to raise registration and participation in our elections.

I will more precisely address the points that the hon. Lady understandably makes because, no, I do not think these measures will damage turnout. The point is that the vulnerabilities in our system let people down. The 2016 report on electoral fraud by Sir Eric Pickles, now Lord Pickles, leading international election observers and the Electoral Commission all agree that those vulnerabilities are a security risk. As the noble Lord Pickles said,

“our well-respected democracy is at threat from unscrupulous people intent on subverting the will of the electorate”.

We must do our utmost to guard against that, and we must have measures in place to discourage and prevent it.

Part 1 of the Bill therefore introduces what many would consider to be an obvious requirement—the requirement to prove that the vote a person is casting that day is theirs and theirs alone.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that voter ID is actually voter suppression, and that this Bill misses an opportunity for real engagement in not giving 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to vote? Does she agree that this is the perfect time to do that?

[Chloe Smith]

The short answer is no, no and no, and I am happy to explain why. I am sure we will get on to this in the debate, but the point about voter identification is that it is not voter suppression or voter disenfranchisement, which is a word we occasionally hear thrown around. In fact, I look forward to Labour Members explaining why their reasoned amendment suggests that people will be removed from the franchise for general elections. Where in the Bill is the clause that does that? They will not find it, of course, because it is not there. The Bill does not do that, and we should be careful with the words we choose to use, such as “voter suppression” and “disenfranchisement.”

We already have an election check, but the check is so outdated and unfit for purpose that many have forgotten it. People already identify themselves when they go to the polling station, but it is a Victorian test of saying their name and address. The world has moved on, and we need to move with it. Showing photo identification is a reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are. Many people would question why it is not already the case.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A pensioner can bring their bus pass as identification, but the Bill disproportionately disadvantages young people who cannot bring their student card or university or college identification. Will those young people not be disproportionately affected, and should we not expand the range of identification that is recognised by the Bill, as a minimum?

[Chloe Smith]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is getting into the detail of what is actually being proposed, which is excellent. He makes the important point that schedule 1 has a widespread and broad-based list of identification. In fact, 98% of the population hold those forms of ID.

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

These proposals were trialled in 2019, and during that trial 2,000 people were turned away for not having the correct form of identification. Of those 2,000, 700 did not return to vote. Whether it is voter suppression is a question of semantics, but it is hardly encouragement, is it?

[Chloe Smith]

Under this Bill, as is clear in the impact assessment and the associated documents, there will be a widespread public communication campaign to ensure awareness so that people know what to bring with them to the polling station, which is only right. That is exactly what we would expect, because we want people to be able to take part in our elections.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

The Minister is making an excellent speech introducing the Bill. There is another side to this issue, as pointed out by the Electoral Commission’s research showing that two in three people would feel much more confident in the security of our voting system if there were voter ID. Surely that has to be taken into consideration by those who have been intervening.

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes my next point for me, and she is right. It is important that we think about what will increase confidence in our elections, and I would love the message to go out loud and clear from the Chamber today, and from the reporting and discourse on this Bill, that we all want participation and we want to talk up our election system rather than talking it down.

I understand there are genuine concerns about this change and our plans to implement it, which is why I have met many organisations that represent voters from different backgrounds to understand what challenges it may present. I will continue to listen and to benefit from their wisdom.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I was concerned to hear the Minister imply that concerns about voter suppression are somehow party political. Does she accept that the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, found that the

“introduction of a voter ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups with protected characteristics who are less likely to hold…photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities”?

Inclusion Scotland backs up that concern. Given that cross-party finding, what plans do the Government have to mitigate any discriminatory impacts on these groups?

[Chloe Smith]

It might not have been the intention of the hon. and learned Lady to assist me in making this case, but she does because she allows me to make the critical point that this scheme is underpinned by a free local voter card. I have already mentioned that 98% of people already hold the identification that will be asked for by the scheme. For those who do not, we are making sure there is the free alternative of a local voter card.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

When we cut through the noise, is it not true that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that we cannot have definite security in our elections if we do not have photo ID? Is it also not the case that we are being asked to continue a practice that puts us outside international standards?

[Chloe Smith]

That is exactly the case. Indeed, countries around the world already operate this system with ease, and not only other countries. This policy is already successfully and easily operated inside our own United Kingdom, and we need to learn from the Northern Ireland experience.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

The Minister alludes to Northern Ireland, which already has this in place. What analysis, if any, have the Government made of the situation in Northern Ireland? Can she tell me that the scheme has not had a negative impact on voter turnout in Northern Ireland? What analysis has there been, and by whom?

[Chloe Smith]

There is a considerable evidence base on what has happened in Northern Ireland, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), would be only too happy to respond further to that point later in the debate. Both he and I are happy to say that there is not a clear direct link between turnout and this scheme, because turnout can be influenced by lots of different factors. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) will accept that, especially when he thinks about how much turnout he would like in a future referendum, for example.

We need to put in place a scheme that commands confidence, that aids people’s confidence in elections and that will not be discriminatory. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the work we have done through our pilots, modelling and analysis, through the Northern Ireland experience and through working with organisations shows us we can be sure that, with the free local voter card, there will be an opportunity for everybody who is eligible to vote to continue to do so. That is fundamental to the concerns that have been expressed.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Minister is taking fraud seriously and has come forward with sensible proposals. Is it not the case that, in a world of mass fraud, we are all getting used to having to provide ID and digital identification? Is it not the case that many employees, including Members of Parliament, need a photo pass even to go to work?

[Chloe Smith]

I will make two points on that. The first is that we show identification in everyday life, and reasonably and proportionately so. For example, we show it when we pick up a parcel or apply for a range of other services. Let me give a word of reassurance to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is sitting behind him: what we have with this scheme is not a form of ID database, beyond, of course, that which is already there in the electoral registers. I offer that reassurance in response to an alternative argument that may come out in today’s debate compared with what we often hear from the left.

I am surprised that I need to use the words of a former Labour Government to say this, but I cannot do it plainer than this. When they introduced this policy in Northern Ireland in 2003, they said:

“If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]

The Electoral Commission also states:

“Since the introduction of photo ID in Northern Ireland there have been no reported cases of personation. Voters’ confidence that elections are well-run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations”.

Let me make some progress and set out what else is in this wide-ranging Bill. I must stress that it is not just in-person electoral fraud that this part of the Bill will combat, and that is important because criminals use all kinds of corrupt behaviour together, as we saw in Tower Hamlets and, sadly, elsewhere. Voting by post or by proxy are essential tools for supporting voters to exercise their rights, and they must remain available options for voters who may not wish to, or cannot, vote at a polling station. So this Bill also introduces sensible safeguards against the abuse of postal and proxy voting.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that often the victims of postal vote harvesting are those who come from many of the groups that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned, including those who do not have English as a first language, and that this is a good protection for them and for our democratic process?

[Chloe Smith]

I fear that that may be right. I know that my hon. Friend and others have experience, for example at council level, where they may have seen this happening at first hand. Today, I want to allow a Bill to make progress that will give confidence that a person’s vote is theirs alone, and that is vital. Did we not see that before when we introduced individual electoral registration? Voices were saying that it, too, would never work, but did we not see that it was about reducing the influence of the head of the household on who was allowed to register? That is an important point to remember.

The part of the Bill on postal and proxy voting includes new limits on the number of postal votes that may be handed in by any one individual, and a limit of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. In order to tackle “vote harvesting”, the Bill is also making it an offence for political campaigners to handle postal votes issued to others, unless they are family members or carers of the voter.

Of course, stealing someone’s vote is not always done by personation or by taking someone’s ballot physically. As I mentioned, an equally sinister method that we have seen is people using intimidation, or pressuring people to cast their vote in a certain way or not to vote at all. That is known in the law as “undue influence”. The existing legislation on undue influence, which, again, originated in the 19th century, is difficult to interpret and enforce, so we are providing greater clarity, ensuring that there can be no doubt that it is an offence to intimidate, deceive, or cause harm to electors in order to influence their vote.

I have touched on the ways in which the Bill will combat the silencing of democratic voices by those seeking to influence or steal an individual’s vote, and I will now touch upon more ways in which the Bill will empower our citizens.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that loud claims of personation were made by the Trump campaign in the United States, which were completely without any basis or evidence, and which led to an assault on the Capitol building in Washington that suspended democracy itself. Does she think that as a Minister she should be promulgating an evidence-free claim that personation is a widespread problem that needs solving, with the cost being to deny millions of people their vote?

[Chloe Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of this House, think he should be promulgating such nonsense? I do not think so.

One of the truest pillars of our democracy is the trust that we place in our citizens’ choices and the respect we give their decision. While we make voting in elections more secure, we also want to ensure that voters who may still require additional support to navigate that system, such as those with disabilities, have that support. This is why we are introducing key changes from our call for evidence on access to elections, extending the requirements on returning officers to support a wider range of voters with disabilities and extending the definition of who can act as a “companion” to anyone aged 18 or over.

In the same spirit, looking a little further afield, part 2 of the Bill will ensure that the voices of British citizens across the world can be heard, and their vote taken into account on matters that do affect them, by removing the 15-year limit on voting rights of British citizens living abroad.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

On people with disabilities, clause 8 talks about people who are blind and about

“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote”.

Blind people still find it difficult to have this access through existing legislation. Does the Minister not consider that that measure actually weakens the provision that blind people have? Will she meet the Royal National Institute of Blind People and listen to its views, because it has serious concerns about the clause?

[Chloe Smith]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because I know a number of hon. Members care about it, and rightly so. I can reassure him and everybody here today that I have been working with the RNIB for months and indeed years to make the improvements we need to the system for allowing blind and partially sighted voters to cast their vote. In answer to his specific question, I do not think that the measures in this Bill weaken that support; I think they strengthen it, by ensuring that a wider range of voters with disabilities—or, should I say, a wider range of disabilities—may be properly supported at the polling station. That is important, as we would not wish some to be unsupported by a phrasing in legislation that is now outdated and overly narrow—that is what our reform seeks to tackle.

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

On the Minister’s point about empowering citizens, she will be aware of reforms in Wales and Scotland whereby any legal citizen, no matter their nationality, can vote in our respective parliamentary elections and local elections. This Bill seems to be limiting the ability of European nationals to vote in local elections in England and in Westminster elections. Why is Westminster going on a totally different path from Wales and Scotland?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because there are two things to be said. The first, which I shall come to shortly in my remarks, is about how we are updating the franchise to reflect the position of EU citizens. The other important thing, which is worth making clear at this juncture, is that parts of the devolution settlements apply to electoral policy and so it is important to be clear that in this Bill we are looking at measures that will apply UK-wide—a full analysis is available, of course, in the Bill documents. That means we will have consistency at parliamentary elections, but a natural consequence of devolution is that there may be differences at other levels. I think we would both accept that and seek to work to make those arrangements a success for voters who may experience both sets of arrangements and for the hard-working election staff who may administer both sets.

As I have completed my remarks on overseas electors, I shall carry on moving through the Bill. At this point, I wish to address the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment. It may come as little surprise that, regrettably, they take two opposite positions in one amendment: on the one hand they would like British citizens to participate more—indeed, that was their manifesto position—and on the other hand they do not. The official policy of the Liberal Democrats is to support votes for life, and the policy paper that they published in July 2019 said:

“There is no reason why”

expats

“should be treated any differently to those who continue to live in the UK.”

I agree. The Bill puts in place tougher measures against foreign interference and foreign money, but overseas British citizens are just that—British—and are therefore able both to vote and to donate. There is a long-standing principle, originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister references the Committee on Standards in Public Life; why has she not included in the Bill any of the Committee’s recommendations on campaign finance?

[Chloe Smith]

I shall come to campaign finance shortly, but is that all the right hon. Gentleman has to say on overseas voters?

Let me turn to the voting rights of EU citizens, an important subject that has been asked about. Part 2 of the Bill updates the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens who reside in the UK and moves to a more reciprocal model that fits our new arrangements. We stand by our commitments to those EU citizens who were resident here before our exit from the EU, so any EU citizen who was a resident before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 and has legal immigration status will retain their voting and candidacy rights. That goes beyond our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. For EU citizens who have moved to the UK following our EU exit, local voting and candidacy rights will be granted on the basis of bilateral agreements with the individual EU member states that will reciprocate arrangements for British citizens who live there.

We all want to make progress this afternoon, so let me move on as fast I can through the rest of the Bill. I have set out the ways in which the Bill will bolster the security of our elections; let me move on to the enforcement of electoral law. A critical part of our electoral system is and must continue to be effective, independent regulation, and the Electoral Commission has a vital role to play. Lord Pickles found that the

“current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission—by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—does not provide an effective third-party check on its performance”,

so we think it is right for Parliament to have an increased role. The Bill will introduce a strategy and policy statement that will provide guidance to which the commission will have to have regard in the discharge of its functions. It will be subject to statutory consultation, parliamentary approval and regular review.

We will also improve the parliamentary structures that hold the regulator to account. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission currently has a limited remit; the Bill will therefore give it the additional power to examine the commission’s compliance with its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement. That will allow Parliament to better scrutinise the work of the commission. Together, the reforms will facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Electoral Commission’s work while respecting its independence.

It is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s reasoned amendment misrepresents scrutiny by Parliament and misunderstands—or again wilfully misrepresents the fact—that the commission remains governed, in law, by its commissioners. We are also clarifying that the Electoral Commission should not bring prosecutions, and that prosecutions should remain with the existing prosecution authorities.

Let me move on to political finance, which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We already have a comprehensive regulatory framework for campaigning that is rooted in the principles of fairness, transparency and the importance of a level playing field. We want to ensure that our electoral law continues to uphold those principles, which is why part 4 of the Bill will update and strengthen our political finance laws to restrict all third-party spending to UK-based entities and eligible overseas electors; to increase transparency around third-party campaigning at elections and the registration of new political parties; and to prohibit parties and campaigners from unfairly expanding their spending limits. The Bill will ensure that campaign spending can come only from sources that have a genuine and legitimate interest in UK elections, by restricting all third-party spending to UK-based entities and registered overseas electors, above a £700 minimum threshold.

On the regulation of third-party campaigners, it is right that those who campaign at elections and seek to influence voters are subject to transparency requirements and rules that maintain a level playing field. Those principles already apply. The Bill seeks to balance the burden of regulation, relative to the level of campaign spending, with the importance of a thriving and diverse public debate.

The Bill will not change the definition of what constitutes controlled expenditure for a third-party campaigner. The Electoral Commission already provides guidance, developed with third-party groups, on what constitutes such expenditure. To ensure that any other legitimate categories of third party that may emerge in future are not significantly restricted in their ability to campaign, a power will be given to the Secretary of State to amend the list of legal entities eligible to register as campaigners under section 88(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Any change to that list made via a statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. The Opposition amendment is simply wrong: the last time I checked, democratic parliamentary procedure on an SI is not “unilateral” change by a Secretary of State.

[Catherine West]

The Minister talks about third-party involvement in our elections. Is she satisfied that the proposed legislation complies with the recommendations from the Russia report from last summer?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I am. What we are doing in the Bill, as I have already explained, is moving undue foreign influence out of our politics. We are doing that with this new category of campaign regulation that we are introducing. I have just referred to it and it includes an above £700 minimum threshold. It ensures that campaign spending can come only from sources that have a genuine and legitimate interest in UK elections.

[Catherine West]

indicated dissent.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is what it does, and that is important.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

We discussed this matter in Westminster Hall back in 2019. As one of my colleagues reminded us, in 2019, the Conservative party received £400,000, with one donation coming from the household of a former Russian Minister under Vladimir Putin eight months after the Salisbury poisonings. There was also money from a personal friend of the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. Does the Minister not agree that this does not go far enough to stop this happening again?

[Chloe Smith]

I have three points. First, this Bill does the right thing, as I have just explained. Secondly, the Conservative party does the right thing with regard to our donations, as I am happy to explain and defend at any time. Thirdly, I am already having to pass through so many pages in my briefing to find the bit about the SNP because there are quite a few points about how it handles its donations as well. I do think it is important that a person gets their house in order before they accuse others.

Let me move on to the important matter of notional expenditure. We are talking here about measures that will deliver better transparency for voters and candidates. I am sure that many in this House will welcome the clarification of the law on notional expenditure that is included in the Bill, which will ensure that candidates and their agents can continue to conduct full campaigns without the fear, as found by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee,

“of falling foul of the law through no fault of their own”

and inadvertently causing candidates to exceed their spending limits.

I will go on now to the new electoral sanction of intimidation. A free choice for voters means that anyone entitled to stand as a candidate must feel able to do so. Without a broad range of candidates for voters to choose from, we diminish representation in this country. I am sad to see a rising number of incidents of people trying to exclude others from the debate through violent or illegal behaviour. Voters do not expect violence in our elections. People should not be fearful of expressing their views or standing up in public service. That is why the Bill introduces an additional sanction that will bar an individual found guilty of intimidating a candidate, campaigner or elected representative from running or holding office for five years on top of their sentence.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

If the hon. and learned Lady would like to come in at this point I will give way, but I think that that may be one of the last interventions that I take because I need to make some progress.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am just concerned that the hon. Lady has moved on from dealing with part 4, which deals with regulation of expenditure, before answering the question put by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which is: what will the Government do about the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life? The Committee published a very full report after a year of work on 7 July suggesting a number of recommendations—I think that it is 47 practical steps to modernise and streamline the way in which donations and spending are reported regularly to then enforce. Will she tell us which if any of those recommendations she will bring forward as Government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to be as quick as I can in concluding my remarks.

The answer to the hon. and learned Lady is that, first, we will be responding in full to what the CSPL said. There are some very good points and ideas in there that we are already able to deliver through the Bill, such as diminishing the extent of foreign influence through political finance in our system. There is also much more that has been drawn out over many years by other bodies. I am talking about the Select Committees here, Members of the Lords, the Association of Electoral Administrators and many, many others. There is a lot of discussion and debate about how we should keep our electoral system safe. I am proud to introduce a Bill that does the most important and pressing of those, and which will have the overall effect of keeping our elections safe, modern, transparent, fair and inclusive.

Part 6 of the Bill introduces a new digital imprints regime, which will be one of the most comprehensive in the world. I think that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that, because we all agree that voters all, rightly, want to know who is talking. The Bill will require digital campaigning material to display a digital imprint explicitly showing who is behind it—all year round and wherever they may be in the world. This provision will deliver on recommendations made by many to improve public trust and confidence in digital campaigns at future elections and referendums.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Would this measure translate to websites fronted by political activists masquerading as members of the public concerned about a different cause?

[Chloe Smith]

Political and election material will be included. I look forward to discussing the finer details as we work through the Bill. It is incredibly important that we have that transparency so that voters can make their choice as they think best.

Before I close, I need to deal with the Labour party’s amendment and its position—or, should I say, its many positions? It is a mystery to me why the Labour party seems to think that identification is good enough for its own members, but not for the British electorate. One person, one vote: it is a really simple formula. Why would anybody believe that criminals should get two? This is not what we ought to believe. Why does the Labour amendment say that the Bill restricts the general election franchise? I do not think that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) will be able to explain why, because it does no such thing. Why would the Labour party be doing this? Because it has its own murky interests in making it up and misrepresenting the Bill. Perhaps the other parties—

[Catherine West]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Until this point, the debate was going quite well, but that allegation is a disgrace. I ask you to withdraw it, Minister. Everyone in this Chamber works very hard in elections and it is in everyone’s interests to have elections that are well run and well respected. That kind of insult makes people denigrate our democracy, which we fight day in, day out to protect, and which we cherish—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The point of order should be addressed to me, rather than to the Minister. I can assure the hon. Lady that if anything had been said that was disorderly, I would have advised the Minister that it was disorderly.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do hope that the other parties who supported today’s amendment have those high standards to which we all aspire. They will be able to judge clearly where they see politicking at play. I also hope that the House can judge that as clearly as was set out in the judgment of the Tower Hamlets case, which stated that the convicted perpetrators

“spent a great deal of time accusing their opponents…of ‘dividing the community’ but, if anyone was ‘dividing the community’, it was they.”

The judge went on to say,

“The real losers in this case are the citizens”.

As I have set out, the Government’s vision for UK democracy is a system that is secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent. We have a strong history; a robust constitution; a model of democracy that is copied around the world; a thriving tradition of campaigning and passionate public participation; and the highest standards of security, fairness and transparency.

The improvements in the Bill will raise confidence even further in our elections. They are reasonable, proportionate and carefully planned measures that command support and come from common sense. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

Not at the moment.

I understand that the Government are open to further such agreements with other EU member states, and that is a most welcome prospect. It would mean that their residents and British citizens could benefit from future voting arrangements. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Greece, I recently met the secretary-general of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Demiris, in Athens, and informed him of the UK Government’s offer to enter into bilateral agreements with EU states on the granting of mutual franchise rights in municipal elections, as envisioned in this Bill. I would welcome the Government writing to me to explain what measures they are taking to proactively encourage uptake of their offer to enter into such bilateral agreements.

[Chloe Smith]

indicated assent.

[Alberto Costa]

I think the Minister is nodding to suggest that she will write to me on that matter.

But the Government have gone further still. EU nationals who do not fulfil the qualifying criteria set by the Bill—for instance, those who have come to the UK post the implementation period completion date of 1 January 2021 and do not hold settled status, but who were elected into a public role as defined by the Bill in schedule 7—have the protection afforded by the provision of part 4 to continue in office for the period of their elected term. Again, this is a sensible, welcome measure to protect the rights of those EU citizens. I will be supporting the Government’s Bill, and I very much look forward to seeing these important rights finally enshrined into law.

Role of Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

As set out in a previous statement to this House (HCWS100), the Government have proposed a series of measures in the Elections Bill that seek to maintain public confidence in the effective and independent regulation of the electoral system by empowering the UK Parliament to hold the Electoral Commission more effectively accountable. As the independent regulatory body charged with upholding the integrity of free and fair elections, it is right for the public to expect that the Electoral Commission should be more fully and duly accountable to the UK Parliament for the way it discharges its functions.

The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. The commission is made up of electoral commissioners, including a chair, who are appointed by Her Majesty via an Address in Parliament. The electoral commissioners govern the work of the Electoral Commission.

The commission is already accountable, but to a limited extent, to Parliament via the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. The Speaker’s Committee is a cross-party, statutory Committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker’s Committee is responsible for:

determining and overseeing the procedures for selecting candidates to be put forward for appointment or reappointment as electoral commissioners;

examining the Electoral Commission’s five-year plan and annual financial estimates (considering the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and advice from the Treasury) to decide whether they are consistent with the economical, efficient and effective discharge by the commission of its functions. Following this, the Speaker’s Committee lays the documents before the House of Commons, with or without any modifications as necessary;

reporting to the House of Commons at least once a year on the exercise of its functions.

It is important to note that the measures in the Elections Bill do not amend the Speaker’s Committee’s current duties nor do they alter the other existing accountability arrangements of the Electoral Commission: the commission will remain accountable to the Llywydd’s Committee and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in relation to financial matters and its business plan where it relates to devolved functions. Our proposals will also maintain the statutory role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in his examination of the commission. The Government’s measures will build on these current arrangements to enhance the commission’s accountability to Parliament. This is primarily being done in two ways.

Strategy and policy statement

We will make provisions within the Elections Bill for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement. The statement, if approved by the UK Parliament, will set out guidance and principles to which the commission will have a legal duty to have regard in exercising its reserved and devolved functions. However, that legal duty does not replace or undermine its other statutory duties. It is commonplace for the Government to set a policy framework, as approved by Parliament, which independent regulators should consider.

An illustrative example of a statement and policy statement for the Electoral Commission will be published during the passage of the Elections Bill to aid parliamentarians. We will also be engaging with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and other interested parties on how a draft statement might be framed.

The role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

We will expand the functions of the Speaker’s Committee to give it the power to examine the commission’s compliance with the duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement. The Government intend:

to enable the Speaker’s Committee to perform a scrutiny function similar to that of parliamentary Select Committees, in that it will be able to retrospectively examine the Electoral Commission’s activities in light of the regulator’s duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement;

that as part of its existing yearly reporting requirements on the discharge of its functions, the Speaker’s Committee will be able to draw to the attention of the House any matter of interest relating to the Electoral Commission’s compliance with its duty with regards to the strategy and policy statement;

that the Speaker’s Committee will also be able to set out its own procedures to outline, if it wishes to do so, its workings under its expanded remit in any way it sees fit;

that the Speaker’s Committee will have the ability to request information (for instance via a public evidence session) from the Electoral Commission that the Speaker’s Committee may require to discharge its scrutiny function;

that the Speaker’s Committee will not be expected to examine individual complaints from members of the public and others against the Electoral Commission. Members of the public can already complain to the commission and the parliamentary and health service ombudsman.

It is right that the commission remains fully operationally independent and that it continues to be governed by its electoral commissioners. Therefore, with this new power the Speaker’s Committee will not be able to proactively direct the commission’s decision making. Our measures will not affect either the governance structure nor statutory provisions for the Electoral Commission’s board and commissioners.

With these two measures the Government will empower the UK Parliament to hold the Electoral Commission effectively accountable—crucial in maintaining public confidence in our electoral system—while also respecting the commission’s investigative, enforcement and operational independence.

I have placed an infographic with this statement in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-09-07/HCWS269.

[HCWS269]

Cabinet Office

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from a Westminster Hall debate on 8 July 2021.

[Chloe Smith]

A theme that we will return to time and again with the Elections Bill is the broad-based nature of our politics in this country. It is something to be proud of that our democracy is built on volunteers and grassroots participation. I acknowledge that there will be an argument for taking regulation to the extreme degree. One of the recommendations in the report by the hon. Members for Aberavon and for Edinburgh North and Leith and their APPG, which I have read carefully, is to reduce to zero the threshold for non-cash donations, for example. I am concerned that such a recommendation might damage that space for legitimate grassroots participation in our democracy inside this country, which I will defend to my dying day. I am sure we will return to that in further debates, but I thought it helpful to set out my thinking on that at this point.

[Official Report, 8 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 327WH.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith):

An error has been identified in my response to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).

The correct response should have been:

[Chloe Smith]

A theme that we will return to time and again with the Elections Bill is the broad-based nature of our politics in this country. It is something to be proud of that our democracy is built on volunteers and grassroots participation. I acknowledge that there will be an argument for taking regulation to the extreme degree. One of the recommendations in the report by the hon. Members for Aberavon and for Edinburgh North and Leith and their APPG, which I have read carefully, is to effectively reduce to zero the threshold for non-cash donations, for example.

Supply Chain Finance in Government: Boardman Review

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

On 12 April, the Government announced that the Prime Minister had asked Nigel Boardman to investigate the development and use of supply chain finance in Government, especially the role of Lex Greensill and Greensill Capital (including associated companies or companies in its group) and any related issues that Mr Boardman considered were in scope.

In accordance with the terms of reference, Mr Boardman has provided the Prime Minister with a report which sets out Mr Boardman’s findings of fact. This was provided to the Prime Minister yesterday and is being made available to the House today.

In producing this report, Mr Boardman interviewed 45 individuals, for a total of over 100 hours. Mr Boardman had access to all the papers he requested, totalling several thousand pages of written evidence. This is a non-statutory review, but in line with long-standing convention, the Prime Minister made clear at the outset his expectation that all Ministers, special advisers and civil servants, whether current or former, should co-operate fully. Those individuals who participated, or their personal representative where applicable, were provided with relevant documents to assist their evidence. They were then offered the opportunity to discuss the relevant documents and provide any comment during an interview with Mr Boardman. These comments were considered, in good faith, as part of the review.

The purpose of the review was to establish the facts and any lessons to be learnt. As set out in the terms of reference, the review does not form part of a disciplinary process, nor is it intended to apportion blame or criticism to individuals. In establishing and setting out the facts, however, Mr Boardman attributes actions to named individuals, some of which could be read as critical of individuals. Where this is the case, the individuals concerned, or their personal representative where applicable, were given the opportunity ahead of the report being finalised to make representations on those sections of the report that could be perceived as criticisms to correct factual inaccuracies.

The Government thank Mr Boardman for all of his work in examining the evidence and setting out his judgement on the facts of what occurred. Mr Boardman will be providing the second part of his report, including any specific recommendations, shortly. The Government will respond to Mr Boardman’s findings, and any recommendations, in due course.

I am depositing a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and publishing it on gov.uk.

[HCWS237]

Government Transparency and Accountability

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account.

Despite the need to reprioritise resources to respond to the covid-19 pandemic, central Government Departments continue to publish core transparency data. Such online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, cutting waste and inefficiency, and ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way.

Following the recent declaration on Government reform, the Government will continue to look at how the range of information published by Government can be improved and made as useful as possible to the public, press and Parliament.

The following subject areas include documents and information that the Government is due to publish. This statement also includes updates on cross-Government work on outcome delivery plans, business appointment rules, information management guidance for public authorities and policy work on ministerial absences.

Outcome delivery plans

The Government are today publishing outcome delivery plans for the financial year 2021-22. Outcome delivery plans form the basis of the revised Government planning and performance framework, building and improving on the previous single departmental plan framework.

Outcome delivery plans set out how each UK Government Department is working towards the delivery of its priority outcomes, which were first and provisionally published at spending review 2020. Priority outcomes capture the Government’s most important long-term policy objectives, from maximising employment and improving skills to achieving net zero by 2050.

In areas where closer working between Departments would achieve better results, 16 outcomes were agreed on a cross-cutting basis between Departments, reflecting the Government’s commitment to breaking down silos and enabling stronger collaboration between Departments. Outcome delivery plans place a greater emphasis on joint working between Departments, enabling Departments to plan together to deliver shared outcomes. The Government have also identified provisional metrics for each outcome at spending review 2020, against which progress towards delivering these outcomes will be measured.

Since the spending review 2020, these priority outcomes and metrics have been further refined and revisions to those are reflected in outcome delivery plans. Priority outcomes and metrics will be reviewed again where appropriate at the next spending review later this year.

In addition to setting out the strategy for achieving priority outcomes, Departments also identify plans for delivering critical enabling activities, which are crucial to the successful delivery of outcomes. These enabling activities include: attracting and investing in skilled people; embracing innovation; and strengthening functional expertise to support the delivery of outcomes. To ensure we deliver on our sustainability commitments and make the civil service the UK’s most inclusive employer, the plans set out how Departments are driving sustainability, how their work contributes to the delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and the Government’s equality objectives.

The new plans also place greater emphasis on high-quality evaluation, which is critical to understanding what works. This builds on the detailed overviews of evidence bases and valuation plans that Departments provided to inform decisions at spending review 2020.

The Government use regular reporting to monitor progress against outcome delivery plans. Parliament and the public will be able to review how each Department is performing against its priority outcomes in its annual report and accounts, which Departments publish annually after the end of each financial year. More regular performance information for many of the metrics agreed for priority outcomes can be found in official statistics and other public datasets.

Hyperlinks to these datasets have been included in outcome delivery plans to make this data more accessible to the public.

Transparency in delivery of major projects

The Cabinet Office is publishing the “Annual Report on Major Projects 2020-21” (and accompanying quarterly Government Major Projects Portfolio data taken as a snapshot at 31 March 2021). The annual publication on the Government's major projects raises awareness of how Government is improving public services, providing value for money and benefits for citizens through its major projects. The report and accompanying spreadsheets detail the 183 projects on the Government’s major project portfolio.

Ministerial transparency

Departments will be today publishing the routine quarterly ministerial data on external meetings, gifts, hospitality and overseas travel.

Transparency on special advisers and senior officials

Special advisers are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the impartiality of the permanent civil service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.

In line with legislation, each year the Cabinet Office publishes a list of special advisers and their costs. Today, the Cabinet Office will be publishing the list of special advisers in post along with the cost of special advisers from the previous financial year (April 2020 to March 2021).

The Cabinet Office will also be publishing quarterly data on gifts and hospitality received by special advisers, as well as information on special adviser meetings with senior media figures and business appointment rules advice.

Departments will also be publishing routine quarterly data on the travel, expenses and meetings of senior officials and on business appointment rules advice.

Transparency in the civil service

Alongside routine workforce management information and sickness data, Departments will shortly be publishing updated organograms.

Transparency on correspondence

The Cabinet Office is publishing correspondence data on the performance of departments and agencies in responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords during the calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Transparency in public bodies and public appointments

The Cabinet Office will today be publishing “Public Bodies 2020”. Public bodies play a vital role in the delivery of public services for all our citizens, covering wide-ranging functions. Well-governed, effective and efficient public bodies enable the Government to deliver its priorities. “Public Bodies 2020” is an annual directory that provides a single transparent source of top-level financial and non-financial data on all Executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and non-ministerial departments across Government.

The Cabinet Office will also be publishing public appointments data. The public appointments data report provides a breakdown of the diversity of public appointees who were in roles covered by the governance code on public appointments on 31 March 2020 and those appointed to such roles between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2020. The latter data is a subset of the information published in the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ annual report.

Management of public authority records and information

The Government are publishing a revised code of practice on records management. Under Section 46(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport has a duty to publish, and a right to revise, a code of practice providing guidance to relevant authorities on the management of their records. The code is a technical document aimed at supporting information management professionals in public authorities to discharge their duties under the Act.

In 2018, the National Archives was commissioned to undertake a routine review of the code. The code has since been revised and updated on a principles-based, format-neutral basis, bringing the existing 2009 code up to date with contemporary information management practice and the modern digital working environment. The revised code places information management in the context of broad principles, providing a more accessible framework which outlines how authorities should best manage their information to support appropriate public access under the Act. The code also clarifies the basis on which the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives operates.

Ministerial absences—further work

Following the passing of the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act in March of this year, the Government have continued work considering the practical and policy considerations surrounding other forms of ministerial absence. We are specifically considering whether provision can be extended in circumstances of paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave and sickness leave. These are complex issues which require careful consideration, taking into account modern working practices and the wider constitutional context. The Government have continued to make progress in its consideration of these issues as they relate to Ministers but is mindful of related work in other areas looking at the wider workforce and provisions for MPs, led by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Government will present a report focused on ministerial leave provision to Parliament in the autumn, setting out considerations and proposals.

Improving the business appointment rules

As the Government have previously set out, the Cabinet Office is working with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments to improve the operation and efficacy of the business appointment rules. The work will consider and implement improvements to the scope and clarity of the rules, including the enforcement of the rules with an update to the rules later this year. The Cabinet Office is also working closely with Departments to improve the consistency and proportionality of the implementation of the rules, including improving training on and communication of the rules.

Copies of associated documents are being placed in the Library of the House and will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS185]

Voter ID

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I will aim to speak for no more than 10 minutes, leaving time for the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) to come back in at the end. I hope that is sensible.

I thank the hon. Member for Luton South for bringing forward this debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed. The Government and I are committed to upholding the integrity of our democracy, giving the public confidence that our elections remain secure well into the future. Voter fraud is a crime that we cannot allow room for. We propose to stamp out any potential for it to take place in our reserved elections.

The hon. Member for Luton South asks why I would do this. It is because I want more people to vote, because I want people to have their own vote and because, apparently unlike some hon. Members speaking today, I want to stop criminals having two, three, four or more, or scores of votes.

Personation—assuming the identity of another person with the intention to deceive—is, by definition, a crime of deception. It only comes to light later. It is very difficult to prove and to prosecute, but it is a crime and by no means a victimless crime. It is often the most vulnerable who find themselves targeted. The Electoral Commission stated in its review of electoral fraud in 2013:

“The majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders.”

The people who are likely to be the victims of electoral fraud can be described as vulnerable.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns about the diversity in her constituency. I am going to address many of those points today. I will start with a further point from the Electoral Commission’s own research, published by the University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool and the Electoral Commission in 2015, which warns that residents are at greater risk of being victims of electoral fraud in diverse areas.

Voter identification is important. It is a reasonable approach to strengthening our electoral system. It virtually eliminates the risk of personation occurring in the first place. Since its introduction in Northern Ireland, there have been no reported cases of personation. The EC has also previously noted that the confidence of voters that elections are well run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations.

Even the perception that our electoral system is vulnerable to fraud is of course damaging to public confidence. Data from our pilot evaluations show that the requirement to show identification increased public confidence in voting, and we all want that.

In 2016, Lord Pickles conducted an independent review of electoral fraud in the UK, which provided the evidence of vulnerabilities in our elections that must be addressed. In the case of Tower Hamlets, where an entire election was declared void by such fraud, he made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of voter identification at polling stations. Hon. Members speaking today, including the hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), have added to that evidence base. It happens in our country, it is wrong and we have the power to act.

The introduction of voter identification is also supported by the independent Electoral Commission. It is backed by international election observers, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s office for democratic institutions and human rights, which has repeatedly called for the introduction of ID in polling stations in Great Britain, saying that its absence is a security risk.

Many other democracies around the world, such as Canada, France and Germany, and the Scandinavian countries—already hailed by the hon. Member for East Lothian today—require some form of identification to vote, and they use it with ease. Showing identification to prove who you are is something that people of all walks of life already do every day.

As we have discussed, many constituency Labour parties require two types of ID to vote in Labour party selection meetings—but then, the picking up of a parcel has been called a privilege. Perhaps Labour Members think that membership of their party is for the privileged as well.

The suggestion that millions of voters will not be able to vote is simply not supported by the evidence. Cabinet Office research from earlier this year shows that 98% of electors already own the photographic documents that we propose, either in date or expired. The survey was the first of its kind looking at the full range of photographic ID planned. I note in passing that the figures used by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) are out of date and are not relevant to the identification that is proposed.

It is important to be aware that the list of approved photographic forms of identification will not be limited to passports and driving licences, but will include a broad range of documents already in use, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, proof-of-age standard scheme cards and photocard parking permits issued as part of the blue badge scheme. Out-of-date ID will also be accepted as long as the elector can still be recognised from the photograph, and any eligible voter who does not have one of any of those forms of identification may apply for their free, locally issued voter card from their local authority. That is critical. Everybody who is eligible to vote must and will have the chance to do so. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including charities and civil society organisations, to ensure that voter identification works for all. I encourage hon. Members to look at our comprehensive equalities impact assessment, which was published alongside the Bill.

As a Labour Minister said in 2003 when introducing photo ID in Northern Ireland:

“If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]

Indeed, look at all the work that I led to ensure that elections could take place this year, despite the pandemic, with voters able to vote by a new proxy scheme, up to polling day itself if necessary. That is not a Government suppressing voters. I strongly suggest that sensible politicians drop that foolish language.

It is vital that such an important policy be implemented properly. That includes secondary legislation, which is a sensible approach. The roll-out of voter identification was successfully trialled in two years of pilots in a variety of local authorities, and we are building on that knowledge with research, modelling and planning, as we work with the electoral sector and wider organisation on the national implementation plans. Crucially, we will ensure that there is sufficient time and resources to support the hardworking elections teams to put it in place. Critically, there will be comprehensive targeted communications and guidance by the EC to raise awareness among voters.

Of course, introducing voter ID is only one of the measures that this Government are bringing forward to strengthen our electoral system. After all, personation is just one of the interlocking types of fraud that we have seen at polls, as argued by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and as demonstrated in Tower Hamlets. That is why, with our new Elections Bill, we are also tightening the rules for absent voting, giving greater protection to all people with a postal or proxy vote arrangement. We are legislating to clarify and improve the outdated legislation on the offence of undue influence of an elector.

Modernisation is critical inside the polling station as well. The test of identification already exists, but voters are asked only for their name and address, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) rightly pointed out. I regret that some seem to oppose voter identification in principle, because that principle has been part of our elections for decades. It is right to do it, but we need to do it well, not badly. Victorian law needs to be updated, and that is what we are doing.

I thank the hon. Member for Luton South for bringing forward the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed. We have discussed a number of important issues, and we will have much more debate as the Elections Bill progresses through Parliament. I look forward to that, because this policy is truly important to protect that most precious of things—our democracy.

We are the stewards of a fantastic democratic heritage, but it is not perfect and we must keep striving to ensure that it stays secure, fair and transparent in the face of the challenges that the modern world brings. Strengthening the integrity of our electoral system will give the public greater confidence that our elections will remain secure well into the future. The measures in our Bill are a reasonable and proportionate approach to give the public confidence in a core principle of our democracy—that their vote is theirs, and theirs alone.