Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank you for that reminder. I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his points. I know that his thoughtful presentation follows on from the work on his private Member’s Bill. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). As he noted, we have looked in some detail at an issue regarding one particular examination board, but if he will forgive me, this afternoon I will focus on responding to the more general points that have been raised.

Freedom of information is, of course, one of the pillars on which open government operates. The Government are committed to supporting the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That Act has been in operation for more than 10 years. It received post-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee in 2012, and it was reviewed by the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information in 2016. One of the key questions raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith is whether the time is right for an overall review of the Act, and I point him towards that work from 2016. It considered whether the Act still ensures an appropriate balance between transparency and the need for a private space—for example for advice and discussion—as well as whether the costs of freedom of information are proportionate to its many benefits.

The Government welcomed the commission’s focus on enhancing transparency, which went a little wider than just the 2000 Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has added an important piece of research to the scrutiny of that Act with its recent report, and I am grateful to the commission and the commissioner for their work on a significant and complex matter. I will respond to that report shortly—I am sure hon. Members look forward to having that response on their bedside tables, just as they did the report itself.

As the Information Commissioner identified in her report, since the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, the UK has been at the forefront of opening up data to allow the public and press to hold public bodies to account. The Government are among the most open and transparent in the world and remain committed to the principles of transparency and openness. We launched updated transparency principles in 2017 and it is a fact that we are publishing more data than ever. We will continue to support the effective operation of the Act as part of that.

On the question of how housing associations ought to be dealt with, we fully share the view that landlords, including housing associations, should be accountable and transparent in their dealings with tenants, and should be responsive to their needs. I am not necessarily persuaded, however, that the extension of FOI to housing associations is the sole best means of achieving that. As landlords, housing associations are private sector bodies that deliver a social benefit, rather than exercising

“functions of a public nature”

or providing public functions under contract on behalf of a public authority, as the Act says. It is important to maintain that distinction; I do not think the analogy is as simple as the second key question of the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggests.

If any Government were deemed to exercise too much control over private bodies, there would be a significant risk that they could be classified as public sector bodies. That would mean that, in this case, their private debt of about £70 billion would be added to the Government’s debt burden—the public’s debt burden. Housing associations would also be subject to public sector borrowing constraints, which would limit their ability to finance the development of new social and affordable homes. I note that housing associations deliver 93% of all new affordable homes, so it is not a small matter.

In terms of accountability, the vast majority of housing associations are voluntarily registered with the regulator of social housing and if they seek public funding, they must be registered and subject to that regime. That means that they have a duty to comply with the standards set by that regulator, including making information available to tenants about the running of the organisation. The key point is that last summer, the Government announced a review of social housing regulation that will look at how transparency and accountability for tenants can be further improved, including better access to landlord information.

As with every hon. Member, I add to the record my sympathy and personal anguish at the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) acknowledged, the inquiry is looking at some of the issues, including communications with residents, which specifically covers whether there was a formal system for recording concerns, what concerns were raised at the time or after the recent renovations, how and to whom any such concerns were expressed, and what was done in response.

[Andy Slaughter]

I gently say to the Minister that there are two weaknesses in her argument. First, disclosing information voluntarily, however laudable the aim or honestly done, is not the same as giving citizens the power to interrogate an organisation. Secondly, if the Minister is right—I think it was the policy of a previous Conservative Government to put the onus on housing associations, rather than councils, to deliver the lion’s share of social housing—and they are standing in the shoes of councils, there is all the more reason for them to be accountable in that way. If Scotland and other charities can do it, why does the Minister appear to envisage the risk of a housing association suddenly being classed as a public body, just because it is subject to FOI?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points and for the way he has put his arguments. I am simply saying that such issues should be considered through the review.

I am also grateful for the points added by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), to whom I wish a happy birthday. I add two points in relation to the situation in Scotland. First, we are looking to see the record that will develop there. As I understand it, the provisions have not yet come into force, so we will look at how effective they are in increasing transparency. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, the Scottish Government laid the planning for the consultation on these matters in 2016 and began it in 2017, so it is not a short process. I would like to think that all hon. Members present recognise that the provisions of the 2000 Act mean that such things are not necessarily quick, simple or short. I will come on a little later to how the Act may be used to extend the scope, if desired.

On contractors—the other half of the case made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—I remind hon. Members of the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office last year about why we as a Government use outsourcing. I say “we”, but successive Governments have used it. I will use his arguments as context in response to the contextual points that have been made today. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we may have philosophical differences, but this is why one would look at outsourcing as a benefit to the public.

As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said,

“you can have both good and bad in both the private and the public sectors”,

as we all know from what we get in our constituency mailbags every week. He continued to say that

“what matters is that the service works for the people who use it in their everyday needs”

and that it provides

“value for money for the taxpayer.”

It is the case that

“the private sector has a vital role to play in delivering public services,”

and the Government continue to support that position, as have successive Governments since at least the 1980s, as I said.

As my right hon. Friend said, outsourcing can deliver “economies of scale” that can mean greatly better value and lower costs for the taxpayer. It is also the case that

“open and fair competition…encourages creativity and innovation”

that simply would not otherwise come about. Again, that benefits the user of that public service. The private sector can also bring

“a range of specialist skills, world-class expertise and deeper knowledge to bear on what can be complex issues.”

His argument is really that the Government

“cannot do everything by itself”,

and should not, because

“It needs the…innovation that only a…marketplace of suppliers can provide.”

In another speech last year on the subject, my right hon. Friend made the argument that small businesses and the third sector have a great appetite for taking part in providing those public services, and for a good reason. In many ways, they are often “closest to our communities” and are

“in the best…position to deliver social value”

through those contracts. That is an important further argument to think about when we look at outsourcing.

Because the Government remain committed to supporting that position, we are sceptical about the introduction of additional reporting burdens on those small organisations. We think that it would weaken the resilience of the delivery for the taxpayer, reduce the value for money that the Government can deliver for the taxpayer, and affect the support that the Government can give indirectly to those jobs when we use such suppliers.

In respect of contractors, the Government have certainly considered how best to balance the competing interests of transparency and burdens. As I have said, we recognise the importance of transparency in how public money is spent, but we are concerned about a disproportionate burden, because we do not want to discourage smaller organisations from serving the public.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am listening to the Minister’s argument, but again, I thought I had dealt with that point in my speech. The majority of inquiries will be about the major contractors that take the lion’s share. I entirely take her point about small contractors, but my Bill would put the onus and the responsibility for the cost on the public authority to do that, so there is a way round it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, and before I finish today I will talk briefly about that relationship between a contractor and the supplier, which is relevant to the proposal.

I will make one further general observation about the position of contractors; actually, I think the hon. Gentleman made it himself in his remarks. Of course, the Act exempts all organisations from providing information in certain ways, for example on grounds of commercial confidentiality. There are other exemptions as well. Extending freedom of information to another category of organisation does not necessarily change that fact, which is set out in the Act. I do not think the case can be made that extending freedom of information would have prevented supplier failure, of which some examples have been given this afternoon.

Let me move on to what is already done to provide information, because it is important to assess where we are working from. It is already policy for Departments to publish information during and after the awarding of a contract, with the exception of information that is commercially confidential, as I have said. That information includes a range of details. The Government’s model services contract includes clauses that reinforce that increased transparency.

The Government are now going even further and we will publish information about how our most important contracts are performing against their contractual targets. That will, of course, hold both Government and our suppliers to account. As well as increasing transparency for citizens to monitor outcomes, we think that this change will drive behaviour and improvements in delivery where they are needed. In addition, Departments are now required to publish their own commercial pipelines twice yearly, which is important to the public.

Since the Information Commissioner first published a report on this subject in 2015, the Government have introduced a range of measures to increase transparency. No doubt hon. Members have made use of the Contracts Finder website, where data can be found, and data.gov.uk, where details on spend can be found. In 2016, the transparency principles were also introduced, which make it clear to suppliers what information from bids will be released, and that any genuinely sensitive information should be highlighted with procuring Departments. That all ensures that citizens can see a clear public record of how Government money is spent on public contracts, and with what results.

I said I would turn to where information is held between the public authority and the contractor. Again, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information looked at the issue of private contractors providing public services. First, it concluded that

“extending the Act directly to private companies…would be burdensome and unnecessary.”

However, it went on to say that

“information concerning the performance or delivery…should be treated as being held on behalf of the contracting public authority.”

Our amended freedom of information code of practice sets out that public authorities should agree what information is held on their behalf with private companies when entering into contracts, that those arrangements should be set out clearly and, indeed, that requests made to private companies providing public services should be passed to the relevant authority to answer. At present, therefore, the Government feel that the Freedom of Information Act strikes broadly the right balance.

Before I close, I will deal briefly with how the Act currently functions. Of course, the point has been made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith that secondary legislation is easy to use in this space. As he knows, orders can be made under section 5 of the Act, if it appears that particular bodies are exercising functions of a public nature; a number of other specifications are also made in that section. Such an order must be preceded by consultation with every person to whom it relates or with persons appearing to represent them.

I come back to the point that, although it may appear that section 5 orders are a straightforward and quick way to bring particular bodies into scope, the provisions in the legislation require consultation with all affected parties, and they further require a careful definition of what information that is held should fall within the Act. That is complex to do, and carries risks.

Adding to the scope of the Act through section 5 also requires a debate in both Houses. Some examples have been given of where these provisions have been used most recently, but I raise this matter to emphasise that the process is not necessarily a quick or straightforward one, and indeed that it is a virtue that such a process is set out in the Act already. Although the process is neither quick nor simple, it is the process that we should use to assess questions about scope.

To conclude, before obviously leaving time for the hon. Gentleman to sum up the debate, I say again that the Government are committed to the principles of transparency and openness across the public sector. We are proud of our reputation as a leader on data transparency. Indeed, we have evidence of that from one particular index that ranks the UK as eighth in the world for transparency, which is an important record. Transparency is crucial to deliver the public value for money, to assist taxpayers and to get the best services for citizens. However, proactive publication needs to be balanced with the other considerations that I hope I have set out for the Chamber today. The Freedom of Information Act is a very important tool in that box of transparency and the Government are absolutely committed to it. We want to see freedom of information used widely, but I hope that it has helped the Chamber today that I have set out some additional considerations in response to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Eighth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 28th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, it is an immense pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Owen, and to be back in this esteemed Public Bill Committee, which is making rapid progress through the legislative agenda—not. Having missed the Committee for a month, I have been reflecting on some of the other things that I have been able to do on a Wednesday morning. Of course, it has been a great sadness not to be here every Wednesday morning, which is why I am particularly pleased to be back.

I am incredibly busy today. I served on a Delegated Legislation Committee at 8.55 am, and now I am serving on this very heavy Committee. In all seriousness, this afternoon I am serving on the Committee considering the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill, which was brought forward by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). I have been reflecting on how quickly we have managed to make progress on that Bill but not this one. Although I fully support the right hon. Lady in trying to take that legislation through, it sticks in my craw somewhat that, in the course of one afternoon, we will consider that private Member’s Bill, take it through its process and quite rightly ensure that it lands on the statute book, whereas the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton is forced to come here—no longer weekly, but monthly—and sit through this complete charade.

That is symptomatic of what is happening in this place. Whether it is Brexit or this Bill, the Government are running down the clock until Parliament prorogues for a new Session, when, as we know, this Bill will unfortunately die. Of course, it is never too late. The Minister could go back to her Chief Whip and say, “We need to take this Bill through and ensure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton gets it on the statute book.” I think that is very unlikely, but I will still come here every month and make those points.

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

It is a great pleasure to see you again this morning, Mr Owen. I have missed the Committee’s various interpretations of proceedings before today, but I can confirm, contrary to all such interpretations, that the order is in hand, as it was before, and that work proceeds to bring it back to Parliament as expected.

[Afzal Khan]

I am sad that, throughout this whole history, the Minister has been unable to enlighten us as to any progress. Even now, the word “progress” means nothing. Can the Minister give us some dates or a timescale?

Electoral Funding: Unincorporated Associations

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for calling this debate, and for the contributions made by various hon. Members. I am only amazed that he took no intervention from anyone other than his friends.

[Mr Lord]

rose—

[Chloe Smith]

I would be delighted to hear from my hon. Friend.

[Mr Lord]

I am hoping that the Minister will say that the Government and all political parties want to root out any wrongdoing. I came here for a Westminster Hall debate, but the sewer of accusations spewed forth by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) is an absolute disgrace. As the Minister said, he took many interventions from his own party, but refused dozens of interventions from others. This was not a debate; it was a diatribe, and he should be ashamed of himself.

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

As far as I can see, nothing disorderly has taken place so far. The Minister can respond to Mr Lord’s question, if she wishes.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Austin.

I will set out the rules surrounding the involvement of unincorporated associations in election funding, which will be helpful in responding to the debate. These associations are included in the list of permissible donors set out in section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The additional Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 introduced reporting rules for UAs that supported political activities; those rules are in schedule 19A of the 2000 Act.

Unincorporated associations must notify the Electoral Commission if the political contributions that they make over a calendar year are more than £25,000, whether that is through a single contribution or several. An unincorporated association must also notify the Electoral Commission of the reportable gifts that it received in the calendar year before it made the contribution, the calendar year of the contribution, and the calendar year following the contribution. That information is published by the Electoral Commission in its register of unincorporated associations and its register of recordable gifts to unincorporated associations. In this way, there is transparency as to who is providing the funds that are paid out by the associations.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

No, I will not, for entirely unsurprising reasons.

Reportable gifts include a single gift of more than £7,500, two or more gifts of over £500 given by the same person in the same calendar year that total more than £7,500, and any additional gifts of more than £1,500 given by a source from which the UA has already received a gift of more than £7,500 in the same calendar year. Electoral Commission guidance also states that any UA that intends to make contributions of more than £25,000 should keep records of all the gifts it receives that are worth more than £500.

There are various ways in which offences are deemed to have been committed. As hon. Members are aware, responsibility for regulating political finance sits with the independent Electoral Commission. It is right and proper that that should sit with an independent body. Any concerns about breaches of the law should be reported to the appropriate authority, and a record of the regulated groups who make and receive donations, including MPs, MSPs and other politically active people, is publicly available on the Electoral Commission’s website. That data is a treasure trove of information, because it reminds us that the Scottish National party and pro-independence campaigners have accepted political donations from unincorporated associations. Who would believe it?

[Colin Clark]

It is very good of the Minister to give way; it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) would not. As the Minister was about to say, the Scottish Women’s Independence Fund Trust, an unincorporated association, has donated money to the SNP. On an associated subject, I would like to ask her opinion of another way of raising finance. The SNP have mentioned sewers; the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, raised £100,000 for a court case—and may have raised more money subsequently. We are talking about a different way of raising money, but does the Minister agree that perhaps Alex Salmond should give that £100,000 back? [Interruption.]

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister to respond.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr Austin. My hon. Friend reminded us that all parties ought to be above board and transparent about their donations. I can confirm that the Conservative party is above board and transparent, as I would expect it to be.

The Government believe that the rules governing permissible donors and the reporting rules for unincorporated associations are sufficiently comprehensive. The permissible donor rules capture the groups that operate in this area, and the relevant reporting rules provide appropriate transparency, but do not swamp these often small organisations in red tape, which is a consideration. The Government therefore have no plans to amend the law. The 2000 and 2009 Acts introduced greater transparency into this area. We welcome that, because it means that we are able to have this debate backed up by a record from the Electoral Commission of who has received what, allowing us all to be transparent.

I will address transparency in Northern Ireland before closing my remarks. The anonymity provisions there have an important historical provenance. They were introduced by the Labour Government in 2001 and were based on careful recommendations in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s fifth report, published in 1998, which concluded that it would be unsafe to disclose the names of those who had made donations to the Northern Ireland parties, as it might result in their intimidation. The retrospective removal of anonymity could put individuals’ safety at risk. We understand the history of that rule. That is why the donations and loans regime for political parties in Northern Ireland was different from that in Great Britain, and that is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

However, thanks to this Government, there is once again greater transparency around those donations and loans; the Electoral Commission publishes full details of all donations and loans to Northern Ireland parties from July 2017. That start date was set because it represented a consensus across the Northern Ireland parties, which is very important.

Finally, donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission. It is unhelpful when hon. Members make accusations that do not seem to fit with what senior members of their parties say. One might note what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said on “Good Morning Scotland” in July 2018. Was there any evidence that the Conservative party had improperly received donations? “No. Absolutely not.” Let us have some consistency, and an understanding of what our elections rules exist to do and the way in which they provide transparency. That applies to unincorporated associations, as well as to the range of other organisations that are correctly mentioned in our electoral law. It is important that we have those rules.

I hope that I have set out why those rules exist, and how they provide transparency to the public. Through that transparency, some perhaps surprising points have arisen from the records. I hope that that is helpful to the House. I hope it allows us all to conduct politics in the respectful manner that we expect, and to display such respect to our constituents.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019 Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019 Draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019 and the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England And Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019.

[Chloe Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The statutory instruments seek to make significant improvements to the electoral framework. Where I can, I will address and explain each of them in order.

The draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019 proposes that expenses that are reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability and that are reasonably incurred are excluded from a candidate’s electoral spending limits. For example, such expenses include, but would not be limited to, British Sign Language interpretation for hearing-impaired candidates or the transcription of campaign material into braille for a visually-impaired candidate. The order will also exclude from electoral spending limits expenses funded from grants provided through the Government’s interim EnAble fund for elected office. That interim fund of £250,000 will support disabled candidates and help to cover disability-related expenses that people might face when seeking elected office.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that the diversity of the UK is sufficiently represented in public office. Although around one in five of the UK population has a disability, disabled people remain insufficiently represented in our Parliaments, Assemblies and councils. The proposed changes will help to create a level playing field between candidates with and those without disabilities, which will enhance equality of opportunity.

The draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019 and the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England And Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019 make changes to the rule governing the conduct of elections of combined authority mayors and of local mayors. The instruments remove the existing requirement that each candidate’s home address must be published during the election process and included on the ballot paper at elections of combined authority mayors and local mayors.

These changes are designed to enhance the security of candidates standing at those polls and to deliver commitments made by the Government in response to recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. These are two of four instruments on that issue. In December 2018, we introduced two statutory instruments that implemented another recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life in relation to candidates in local government and parish council elections. Since 2010, candidates in UK parliamentary elections have been able to choose for their home address not to be made public at such polls. The changes that we are making across all four instruments—for local and parish council elections and, with these SIs, for combined authority and local mayoral elections—will bring the procedure at those polls into line with what already applies to parliamentary elections.

The instruments before the Committee have quite a wide remit, so let me cover application. The election expenses exclusion order will apply UK-wide to all UK parliamentary elections, including by-elections. In England, the order will also apply to local government elections, Mayor of London elections and London Assembly elections, and to mayoral elections and combined authority mayoral elections. In Northern Ireland, it will apply to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I plan to lay a second statutory instrument before the House this year to widen the application of that provision to police and crime commissioner elections across England and Wales. The two draft instruments concerning mayoral elections make provision for combined authority and local mayoral elections in England.

For hon. Members who have not already had enough, let me turn to the detail of the proposed changes. The election expenses exclusion order excludes expenses that are reasonably attributable to a candidate’s disability and are reasonably incurred, by substituting a new paragraph 7A in part 2 of schedule 4A to the Representation of the People Act 1983. Part 2 of schedule 4A to the 1983 Act sets out a list of matters that are excluded from being election expenses and that are therefore not taken into account when calculating a candidate’s electoral spending limits. The change ensures parity with electoral spending limits for non-party campaigners. Schedule 8A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 excludes reasonably incurred expenses that are reasonably attributable to an individual’s disability from the electoral spending limits of non-party campaigners.

Let me allay any concerns, should the Committee have them, about whether the change will require candidates to disclose any disabilities. It will not, and there will be no legal obligation for candidates to report their disability-related expenses, although they can if they wish.

I also seek to allay concerns that the exclusion could be misused by individuals who want to manipulate their electoral spending limits. The provisions are quite clear that the exclusion can be used only for expenses that are reasonably incurred and reasonably attributable, as I have set out, and there is a robust process around candidates’ spending returns to make sure of that. Any breach of those spending rules can be referred to the police and prosecutors for investigation. In sum, the order will not give candidates with disabilities an advantage, but create a level playing field so that candidates with disabilities are not disadvantaged from standing for election.

On the mayoral elections statutory instruments, currently, candidates standing at those two types of elections are required to give their home address, which appears on certain election documents and the ballot paper. The only current exception to those requirements is someone standing at combined authority mayoral elections, where the mayor would also have police and crime commissioner functions, because such candidates may require their home address not to be made public. Under the proposed changes, candidates at either type of election will not be required to provide their home address on their nomination form or consent to nomination form. Instead, they will be asked to include it on a home address form, which will not be made public.

We recognise that we need to strike a balance between the transparency of the electoral process and the safety of candidates running for public office. It is important for electors to know whether a candidate lives locally and whether they have a link to the area in which they are standing for election. For that reason, if a candidate chooses not to make their home address public, they must state the name of the local authority area in which they live. That will then appear on the ballot paper, the statement of persons nominated and the notice of poll for the election, instead of the candidate’s home address. We are providing that home address forms be available for inspection by certain authorised people, including other candidates standing in the poll.

Let me briefly inform the Committee of the consultations on the orders. On the election expenses order, we consulted with the Electoral Commission, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Office. There was also plenty of cross-Government collaboration between the Cabinet Office and the Government Equalities Office. All have been supportive.

On the two mayoral instruments, we have consulted with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. Again, I confirm that there is broad support for the proposed changes. We have also kept political parties informed of the changes through the parliamentary parties panel.

I highlight that it is important that the changes are in place as soon as possible, so that they can apply at the local government elections in May. The instruments come into force on the day after the day on which they are made. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I will try my best briefly to answer the questions that have been put to me. I welcome the Opposition’s support for the draft statutory instruments. I did not clearly hear the hon. Lady’s third question, and I wonder if she might repeat it for me, so that I can be sure to answer all her questions. I think I got the other six.

[Cat Smith]

Which one was the third?

[Chloe Smith]

Perhaps if I answer the first and second questions, the hon. Lady will be able to think of the third. I shall return to the others.

The hon. Lady asked how we might protect the home addresses of agents as well as candidates. I have considered that, but I should make the Committee aware that doing so would require primary legislation, rather than secondary legislation, because of where in law agents are legislated for. I assure the Committee that that is being considered, although it is not possible to do inside tonight’s SI.

I will move on to the questions on the draft expenses exclusion order. Secondly, the hon. Lady believes that the predecessor fund—the access to elected office fund—should be reinstated. The Government are committed to the relevant issues, and they are using the interim EnAble fund for elected office to enable them to look at long-term solutions, as it is right to do. I refer to the fund as an interim fund because we want to use it to help people in the 2019 elections, while also allowing for a programme of work with disability organisations, to help political parties to work on improving their ability to support disabled candidates. From that we hope to have political parties offering and advertising support, as well as solutions to help independent candidates. I think that the last of the hon. Lady’s questions was about independent candidates.

The hon. Lady argued that supporting disabled candidates should not be a matter for parties, and that it was for the Government to do the job instead. I suggest that as a point of principle we expect employers and service providers to make reasonable adjustments—a phrase that she rightly used in her question. Given that we expect such action of employers in all other walks of life, I think it is reasonable that we expect political parties to step up and take it for candidates. I stand on a point of principle there, rather than accepting that there is a deficiency in the statutory instrument.

[Cat Smith]

Just to clarify, political parties absolutely have a role to play, and they should step up, where they are able to. My concern was primarily about smaller political parties, whose election funds are obviously much more constrained than those of the large parties that the Minister and I represent, which have more resources available.

As to the question that was not very clear, it was about the EnAble fund for elected office running until May 2020. Paragraph 4.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that the order is meant to be a UK-wide instrument applying to candidates for parliamentary elections; however, a parliamentary election is not scheduled until after May 2020. I was seeking clarification as to whether the Minister expected the fund to be used at the next general election. Perhaps it was a slightly cheeky question.

[Chloe Smith]

Forgive me, Mr Bailey. I was concentrating so diligently on the hon. Lady’s previous question that I did not catch the detail she was asking for. I think perhaps it is simplest if I write to her on that point, to make sure that the Committee receives a reasonable answer. It comes back to the answer I just gave, which is that we are trying, through the EnAble fund, to create an interim way to support disabled candidates while putting long-term solutions in place. I think that is the right way to go about it.

I hope that what I have told the Committee will provide reassurance about our desire for action to happen during a range of elections. I hope that that will mean we have a good testing ground, so that we can look at solutions across different types of elections. Finally, although it has been noted that the arrangement is to run until 2020, actually it is to run until 2020 or until its total of £250,000 is exhausted. That may assist the Committee’s consideration.

The hon. Lady raised the question of a Local Government Association document, on which I am afraid I cannot give the Committee an answer tonight. I am not aware of it, but I will ask my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to answer questions on the fund more broadly. The fund itself is not my responsibility, although the election expenses order is, so the hon. Lady may want to direct her question to ministerial colleagues in that Department.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked whether the order had been introduced on the right timeframe, ahead of the May 2019 elections. Although it is always desirable to have matters in hand six months before elections—that is certainly the aspiration that I work to and that the Electoral Commission has highlighted—I think that the order is in place in sufficient time. I hope that the answers I have given to the Committee about how we are using the fund and the order to encourage the development of longer-term solutions give confidence that we are looking at how to promote the fund, advertise the fund and ensure people are aware of how to use the fund. Ultimately, I think that the measures are in place at the right time for the elections, and I hope that the measures will be successful. I commend all three statutory instruments to the Committee, and I hope that what I have said has been helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019.

Draft combined authorities (Mayoral elections) (Amendment) Order 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019.—(Chloe Smith.)

draft local authorities (mayoral elections) (england and wales) (amendment) (england) regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019.—(Chloe Smith.)

Election Law Reform

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to be here with you tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for raising this issue. I am glad that we have been able to have a lengthy debate in which to fully understand these matters. He has raised a number of important points, and I am glad of the opportunity to respond. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for adding his remarks, and all those who have done so through interventions.

First, I do recognise the very difficult time that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has recently gone through. I hope that he takes solace not only from his acquittal but from the further remarks that the judge went on to make about the good faith in which my hon. Friend was operating. It must be said, however, that while he was acquitted, one person in the case was found guilty of breaching electoral spending rules. The rules that govern the spending of political parties and candidates at elections are important. They provide for a level playing field, as has been discussed, both for parties and candidates. The extent of their importance and the seriousness of any breach can be seen in the judge’s remarks during sentencing on the other part of the case. I will not say anything further tonight on the details of that case, but I do want to address the points on electoral law raised by my hon. Friend. The first of those concerns the Supreme Court judgment on notional expenditure, and the second touches on the divide between candidate and party expenditure. A few other points have been raised, but I will focus on those raised by my hon. Friend.

I should say at the outset that the laws that govern our elections are an integral part of the UK’s democratic framework and therefore something that we should be proud of, respect, protect, and aim to promote. They ensure that there is a level playing field for all candidates, parties and campaigners participating in UK elections, provide a level of protection in regulating the registration of campaigners and parties, ensure that election-related expenses are accounted for, and provide checks and balances. In addition, the Electoral Commission, as the regulator, plays an important role in the electoral framework to ensure that candidates, parties and campaigners are complying with the law.

Let me turn first to my hon. Friend’s point about his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling that there should be no additional requirement for a candidate or an agent to authorise the provisions of free or discounted goods or services. He speaks of amending the primary legislation that governs this point and proposes that it could be amended by way of a statutory instrument so that authorisation becomes required in both types of case. The Government are considering this judgment very carefully and will continue to do so, as will I, in the light of the arguments that have been put tonight. There are serious implications for the law on notional expenditure for electoral candidates. We will continue to talk to the political parties to understand the implications for future campaigns and to consider potential solutions. Indeed, I will be discussing this only tomorrow with a cross-party delegation from the other House.

However, one point I would make tonight is on whether this could or should be done through primary or through secondary legislation. That deserves some consideration. It may not be appropriate, entirely, to seek to amend the primary legislation, as proposed, through the use of the order-making power that is found, as my hon. Friend set out, in paragraph 15 of schedule 4A to the RPA 1983. That schedule sets out the general categories of election expenses. His proposed changes would be a fundamental change to the meaning and effect of notional expenditure provisions in that legislation. It is therefore a fair consideration that any such amendment should be done by primary legislation rather than by an order-making power. I offer that to the House in terms of considering the complexity of the change that we might be looking at.

[Mr Harper]

I approach this matter with care, as I have been in my hon. Friend’s position in the past and know how complex this legislation is. May I just probe her on the answer she is giving to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay)? I thought that his solution was not actually making a fundamental change but putting the legislation back to what we all thought it was, and what I think Members had thought they were doing when they legislated in the first place.

[Mr Harper]

I see that my hon. Friend is nodding. I do not think that he is suggesting using order-making powers to make a big change but saying that we should use those order-making powers to put the legislation back to what we all thought it was before the justices in the Supreme Court made their decision last July.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend. As he says, he has stood at the Dispatch Box in this role, and he, too, will have grappled with the intricacies of the RPA, the PPERA, and more besides. I understand his point, which I would answer by way of an example. Only tonight, I have just come from leading a statutory instrument debate on a further election expenses order. I am a very lucky Minister. I have had the opportunity to be part of three of four election-related debates in only one day. That measure was perhaps a more straightforward example of candidates’ electoral spending limits. We therefore have, at this very moment, some very practical examples before the House of what I would suggest is the right use of that order-making power. That was a different order of thing, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend, than even the way that he characterises this proposed change. We do need to consider whether such a thing should be done by ordermaking or in primary legislation. Whatever the genesis of the problem—whether it came from the Supreme Court or from a different source—it is right that we give it that consideration.

[Mr Harper]

Can I just check the Government’s position on this? I know what the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet is—that the position was clear before last year and the Supreme Court’s decision in July changed the understanding of the position. Is it the Government’s understanding that before the Supreme Court’s decision, the law was clear, as my hon. Friend set it out, and then the Supreme Court changed everyone’s interpretation of it? In other words, do the Government think that there is something that we need to fix, or do they think that the Supreme Court just set out what everyone thought the law was and therefore we do not need to do anything to fix it?

[Chloe Smith]

I think it is fair to say that the Government certainly recognise that the position has been brought into a lack of clarity. The net position right now is that candidates and agents may well be seeking a clearer understanding, and so the question is how to help to provide that. I will come on to ways of doing so.

I want to turn briefly to the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet about how party and candidate spending rules interact. He is arguing, quite understandably, that the law in this area requires reform as well—again, due to a lack of clarity. The Supreme Court itself acknowledges that separating local from national expenditure can sometimes be a difficult exercise. Certainly, the Government’s view, absolutely, is that ensuring that the electoral framework is well understood and operates effectively is important for all of us. One piece of work that is going on is that since 2017 the Electoral Commission has produced a series of updated non-statutory guidance documents on electoral spending for political parties, candidates and third-party campaigners for parliamentary general elections, local government elections, and other elections. That includes specific guidance on managing spending returns and others.

In addition, the Electoral Commission has been working on new statutory codes of practice for registered political parties and candidates. Those are intended to add clarity and give examples of how the law applies to different kinds of electoral spending. I will make a few points on the codes, which I hope will be helpful, and then on what the Government will do.

The code for candidates clarifies the qualifying expenses for candidates that must be declared in a candidate’s spending return and candidate expenses that are exempted. It provides guidance on the cases or circumstances in which expenses are regarded as incurred for the purposes of a candidate’s election. The code also seeks to provide clarity on notional expenditure, which has been discussed at length tonight.

The code for parties similarly clarifies the qualifying expenses that must be declared in a party’s spending return and includes general principles on all campaign expenditure incurred and on expenses that are excluded. As well as guidance and codes, legislative change is always an option to reform electoral law, and we should look at that carefully.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in taking interventions. Can she set out for the House how the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet is treated? In other words, if a third party decides to be helpful and spends a candidate’s money on their behalf without their authorisation, how does the code of conduct say that that should be accounted for, in her understanding of the law? The way that my hon. Friend set it out was quite worrying.

[Chloe Smith]

I am not in a position to set that out on the Electoral Commission’s behalf, because it ought to speak for itself. I do not intend that to be a weaselly get-out, but these codes are the work of the Electoral Commission, and it is for the Electoral Commission to hear these concerns, respond to them accordingly and, in due course, lay the codes before the Commons, and I will come back to that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

We are not accusing the Minister of any weaselly get-out, but she and the Electoral Commission have to understand that there will be no weaselly get-out for any of us if we find ourselves in this situation without clarity on election law. This is a very worrying situation.

[Chloe Smith]

I quite agree, and I hope that that has been clear from the words I have used and repeated tonight. It is in all our interests—I say that in the widest possible sense of the democracy of which we all have the privilege and honour of being part—that these rules are clear. I simply meant that I am not in a position to answer in detail the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about paragraph x, y or z of the code, because that information is available to the House from a different source, and the House should scrutinise that for itself.

[Craig Mackinlay]

As I said in my speech, we have three bits of guidance: the 2015 guidance for general election candidates; the 2017 guidance, refreshed for the general election; and now the 2019 guidance for local election candidates. The Supreme Court judgment came before the publication of the 2019 rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean asked a clear question: what was the intent? Was the intent of Parliament where we once were and what we all understood, or was it what the Supreme Court has finally come up with? If the Electoral Commission is so keen on what the Supreme Court came up with, why has it not put that in its latest 2019 guidance for local candidates? That is the reason I am trying to put the pitch back to what we have all understood for many years—from 1868 onwards—by a simple three-and-a-half-line statutory instrument. I recommend that this be given the most urgent consideration.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend reiterates a number of important points. He is right that this requires urgent consideration, and I have confirmed that the Government are looking at the position and want to help ensure that there is clarity. In this House, we are legislators; we are responsible for looking at the law and whether it is clear. As to the regulator’s responsibility to provide usable guidance promptly, I observe again that the Electoral Commission is separately accountable to the House. There have been questions tonight from my hon. Friend and others that the House will wish to satisfy itself of for its oversight of the Electoral Commission, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is through the Speaker’s Committee. I encourage Members to direct some of their questions to that source. That is the right thing to do.

What I can talk about is the Government’s next steps, so let me add something in relation to the codes of practice that I have mentioned. First, the commission concluded its public consultation on them in December 2018, and Ministers will review those draft codes before they are put to Parliament. Again, I emphasise that because that is the right and proper opportunity for the Government to contribute their part, but also for this Parliament to do so. The commission aims to have them approved by Parliament in time for elections in 2021. The Government will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on the statutory codes of practice, because we recognise the importance of having clear and accessible codes to provide further clarity on electoral spending.

[Alex Chalk]

There can be no doubt but that the Minister is attending to these matters with her customary diligence. Does she agree with me, however, that we can have endless codes of conduct, but that will not address the potential mischief? The situation is that somebody who is being mischievous could in effect sabotage a candidate’s campaign by flying an aeroplane towing a banner at great expense, and that may render the individual liable to conviction, punishment and disgrace. No code of conduct is going to solve that, is it?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, in short, I do recognise the example given, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for expounding it. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, who added other compelling examples, whether about leaflets or in relation to other hostile actors seeking to do such harm. I understand those concerns, and I am glad they have been laid out clearly in examples tonight.

[Mr Harper]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. I want to pick up a point she made about the code of conduct. She talked about clarity, but from listening carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, I think that while part of the problem is about clarity, post the Supreme Court’s decision, the issue is not really clarity. The law is clear, because of the Supreme Court’s judgment, but the problem is that the law, as the Supreme Court set out, is not a good outcome because it allows others to cause mischief. This is not about making the law clear; it is about changing the law back to what we all thought it was in the first place, and only we in this Parliament can do that.

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, and this brings me neatly to the concluding part of my remarks. This is precisely the piece that we in the House and the Government would seek to consider, which is whether we should change the law to provide such clarity. The argument has been put very well tonight that there is a lack of clarity. That has been exemplified and expanded on, and the question remains about the consideration of that judgment and its implications for the law on notional expenditure for electoral candidates.

It is right that we continue to talk to the political parties to understand the implications for future campaigns and to consider potential solutions. Indeed, the Government proactively put this forward as a topic of discussion at the parliamentary parties panel, which we use to consult on these issues, last December. As I mentioned earlier, I will be meeting representatives from across the parties as soon as tomorrow to discuss their views.

[Mr Lord]

I thank the Minister, on behalf of colleagues, for those assurances. Given the importance of this matter, could she give us some sort of timeline? There are different ways to get this new understanding sorted out and on to the statute book, but whichever way her Department chooses, may we at least have a timeline so that this important matter is sorted out once and for all?

[Chloe Smith]

I would like to be able to do so, but I am not in a position to do so. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office will have heard that request, and they may in turn be able to advise me about what may be manageable in the forthcoming parliamentary business. However, I intend to continue considering the matter carefully, as I hope that I have outlined, because we need a better understanding of a few related complexities. For example, were we to make the change, how would we avoid the possibility of further abuses being committed between categories? Proper consideration needs to be given to such a change and to which power could be used to do that, as I said earlier. I give the House a commitment that I will continue to consider those important aspects with Cabinet Office officials.

[Jim Shannon]

On that point, I think that the thrust of what hon. Members have put forward tonight is the need for clarification. They also referred to the upcoming council elections in May. Many of us are seeking that clarification before May, so can the Minister give some indication of what will happen?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and, indeed, for his earlier expression of support for improving the integrity of all elections through the use of voter ID at polling stations. I have set out tonight a number of the tools being used to try to give that clarity: the guidance from the Electoral Commission, the work on the codes and the question of legislative reform. As he will have just heard, I am unable to commit to a clear date for legislative reform tonight, because our considerations need to continue, but I hope that some elements of the existing guidance may still be helpful to all candidates and agents, not just those of us in this Chamber, in the upcoming local elections.

Let me come to a conclusion. It is also important that we have cross-party consensus on any legislative options, because these matters, which apply to our entire democratic framework, ought to be above mere party politics. We would require that consensus before we could proceed with a legislative option. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet again for raising this important matter. As he and I have set out, these rules exist for a good reason: they create a level playing field by ensuring that all associated candidate and party costs are accounted for within electoral spending limits, and they prevent the misuse of electoral spending. The Government will continue to work with the regulator to ensure that there is clear guidance on electoral spending, including through the codes of practice to which I referred. We will continue to consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgment, with a view to protecting those important principles that underpin our democratic framework, which include fairness to candidates and agents and of course the concept of a level playing field, which has been well articulated tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's policies of the Information Commissioner’s January 2019 report, “Outsourcing oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”.

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

The Government are fully committed to transparency and openness across the public sector and have already introduced a range of measures to increase transparency in contracts. That means that we are publishing more data than ever before to the benefit of taxpayers. I am grateful for the Information Commissioner’s report, which we will consider carefully, but we have no plans at present to legislate further in this area.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, as the Information Commissioner tells us, the Government spend £284 billion a year on external suppliers that are currently beyond the scope of freedom of information laws. The Information Commissioner tells us that that would have made a difference at both Grenfell and Carillion, so why will the Government not commit to real transparency and adopt the Information Commissioner’s recommendations?

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out an important package of measures last year to improve transparency in contracting. However, I do not think there is evidence that the collapse of Carillion could have been anticipated by the reforms in the report. Indeed, the relevant Select Committees said that Carillion’s directors were responsible, not the Government.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of intimidation faced by those in public life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

8. Whether his Department plans to conduct further voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

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

A diverse range of local authorities have confirmed that they will be taking part in the voter ID and postal vote pilots for the 2019 local elections. These pilots will provide further insight into ensuring security of the voting process.

[Mr Evans]

I know different local authorities are using different methods as to what constitutes ID, but does the Minister believe enough progress will be made so that, should this Parliament go the full five years, we will have voter ID available at the next general election?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I do. I am grateful to the authorities that are piloting voter ID this year. Their experience will help us to formulate the right policy to roll it out nationally.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that the Cumbrian steak and kidney pie, the merits of which he commended to me, was of the highest quality.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Mr Speaker, I am incredibly grateful to you for those kind words and for coming along to Cumbria Day.

Is the Minister aware that voters in my constituency, the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales cannot vote at all on planning and housing issues that affect them? What steps will she take to bring in democracy for those parts of our country that are under the aegis of a national park, which are not directly elected?

[Chloe Smith]

I am somewhat familiar with the issue because of my proximity to the Broads Authority in my constituency, but I suspect this question may be for a colleague to answer and I will ask them to do so.

Topical Questions

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Some 16% of the adult population of this country has some form of disability, yet when I look around this House, I see very few Members with a disability. When are we going to see an effective Access to Elected Office Fund? We need a Parliament that is representative of the public it serves. When are we going to be like that?

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

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue. He is right to say that we need to raise that level of participation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities is working on a fund that will help that to happen. Furthermore, a statutory instrument will be before the House next Monday that will help with this by addressing election expenses.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

T7. Members discharge their duties in a variety of ways, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is not possible to discharge them properly from inside a prison cell? When will the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) do the right thing, stand down and give the people of that part of the country the representation they deserve?

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it comes down to what the people of Peterborough need: a hard-working and present local MP. Of course we have passed legislation in this place to enable recall. I suspect that may be used in this case, but I hope it will happen promptly, for the sake of the people of Peterborough.

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

Let us consider these figures: 25,342 and 21,900. Those were the number of voters who cast their votes for me and for the Minister to serve as elected parliamentarians, yet just 100-odd votes secured a win in the most recent hereditary peer by-election in the other place. The winner was eligible to stand because his great-grandad’s cousin’s dad’s fourth cousin’s dad’s cousin’s great-great-great grandad was made a Lord by Charles I in 1628. What progress is the Minister making on reform of the other place?

[Chloe Smith]

May I first welcome the hon. Lady back to the Dispatch Box? It is a pleasure to see her here again. Two points need to be made: first, the legislation she cites was that of her own party; and. secondly, reform of the House of Lords is not a priority for this Government. We have been clear on that matter and I can be so again today.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

What conversations is the Department having with local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government about relocating civil service jobs north of the border, specifically in areas such as international trade?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Some of my most engaged constituents are expats who currently reside in France or Spain. Does the Minister agree that it is unfair and undemocratic to deny these British citizens the right to vote after an arbitrary 15 years?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I do, which is why we support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), which will redress that injustice and deliver votes for life.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

T4. Northern Ireland has required voter ID for 13 years. Why is it necessary to run a pilot programme when we have already evaluated it and found that it works effectively and has not affected voter turnout?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support on this matter. We should see such support throughout the House for a set of measures that are reasonable, proportionate and already used in countries around the world and in our own country, the United Kingdom, to help to protect voters and ensure that their vote is theirs alone.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

I have no further update to offer the Committee, other than that the order is in progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Fifth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 25th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 16th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to speak?

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

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Fourth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Committee Debate: 24th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

May I also say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen? I echo other Members in giving my best wishes to all members of the Committee for the new year, and it is a particular pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean back in his place. He said that he had not been to several sessions recently; I have to tell him that he has not missed much, although not for want of trying. On a more serious note, I have missed his presence. I have paid tribute to him in the past for his attendance in the Committee, and also for some of his guidance. He made the point that it would not be appropriate—I think I am correctly paraphrasing his argument—for us to proceed with this Bill until the current boundary proposals have been considered and voted on by this House. I do not necessarily agree with him, but he has made that point consistently. I say to the Minister that perhaps a new year is the time for a resolution to bring forward the proposals for the boundaries, so that we can make that decision one way or the other.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the House is dealing with a lot of legislation around Brexit at the moment, but that should not be a reason not to proceed with the important task of getting these new boundaries sorted. The credibility of the House depends on that. The delay is frustrating to members of this Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. It is also frustrating as regards the quality of democracy.

The right hon. Gentleman has made the point at previous sittings that the House is based on boundaries using population figures that are 20 years out of date. We need to move forward and, therefore, I urge the Minister to do her best to bring forward the orders as soon as possible in this term, so that we can get on with the business of renewing this House’s mandate.

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

I would simply like to say happy new year to all on the Committee, Mr Owen. I confirm that work proceeds as expected on the Orders in Council, which I look forward to bringing to the House in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Televised Election Debates

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and that of Mr Sharma earlier.

First, I thank the petitioners for creating this petition and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for bringing it here today and articulating the arguments for it for the purposes of the debate. My hon. Friend put the original arguments in a capable way and I am glad that he did so for us. I thank the Petitions Committee, which he represents, and of course those members of the public who signed this petition.

I will say at the outset that I very much agree that TV debates are that useful democratic exercise that many Members here today have said that they are and can be. They allow the electorate to reflect on the choices that they wish to make at an election. There is plenty of academic literature, as well as surveys, confirming that members of the public do indeed find TV election debates informative and engaging.

In addition—this is very important to me in my work as Minister with responsibility for elections—such debates can also serve as one of those important tools that engage people who perhaps do not normally engage in politics, so that every so often they can have a think about an election and the big choice that is represented by that election. I really value that, as I know many hon. Members who are here today in Westminster Hall do, too, so I do not think there is any dispute between us that TV debates are an important matter. However, what we are here to talk about is the best way to go about having those debates. That is what I will focus my remarks upon. I am not persuaded that mandating television election debates is the way to achieve that very important goal.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed today. In summary, we heard the case against TV election debates put by my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), and the case for put by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), and—reluctantly, I think—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), as well as the two other Front Benchers here today: the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who spoke for the Scottish National party, and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who spoke for the Labour party.

Of course, I note the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and look forward to—no doubt—continuing this discussion with him when the Bill comes before the House. I reassure him and other Members that I do not stand here in any way to dismiss these arguments; I stand here to engage with them. However, the question I face is whether such measures are the best way to get more people to engage with our democracy.

I will make five key points around the idea of legislating to mandate TV election debates; my points will be about not the virtue of TV elections in their own right, but legislating to mandate them, which is what the petition we are considering asks for.

I begin with the point that TV election debates have already happened—under their own steam—in the last three general elections, without having to be mandated by election law. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East made that point. He rightly said that debates happen all the time, and in five ways, in Scotland. Indeed, they have happened in many ways throughout our elections in recent history. I draw on the words of the hon. Member for Stroud, who said that the genie has been out of the bottle since 2010. Yes, it has, and without needing to be legislated for.

My first point, therefore, is this: the current arrangements between political parties and broadcasters work. They already give rise to election debates, bolstered by the regulatory framework set by the independent regulator, Ofcom. I will come on to those points in more detail.

Secondly, I want to develop the argument that attendance at TV debates is a matter for political parties rather than for the law. I will also bring into the debate how many other campaign mediums are used by parties to convey their messages, and by voters to choose how they get their information, and how we should not prioritise one over others. We need to consider some implementation matters, and I will come on to those, and I also want briefly, in closing, to refer to some of the other evidence on the matter that we have seen here in Parliament, for example from Select Committees.

I start with the point that debates are already happening. Indeed they are, and Members have capably covered how they have been happening since 2010. Under the current arrangements, they have happened by agreement between political parties and broadcasters, and broadcasters collaborate with each other on key factors. TV election debates have been successfully delivered; decisions about format, location and participation have all been settled; and, crucially, the public have benefited from, and no doubt enjoyed, the results. Experienced broadcasters—Sky, but others as well—are well placed to continue to make such decisions, and it would not be right to take that from them and put it into law. It is helpful that different broadcasters are able to choose bring their own distinctiveness to election debates. In what we are discussing, we come close to matters of editorial independence, which we should of course leave with broadcasters, as well as the ability to organise and deliver TV election debates, especially given that we are talking about the costs residing with them. One might argue that the costs and the delivery should stay in the same place.

I will move on to another argument. I said earlier that the debates are a matter of choice for political parties. I do not say that lightly; I say it in full consideration of the fact that it is then for the electorate to choose a political party that has capably communicated to them something they liked to hear. That is what elections are about; it is the fundamental nature of a choice at an election. Voters reward political parties that are aligned with their own priorities and communicate that successfully. Failing effectively to communicate priorities to a voter is unlikely to lead to electoral success—I do not think I need to break that to any colleagues here. That is the whole point of elections, so I say again that there is no need for legislative intervention when voters’ interests, and indeed those of parties, are closely aligned in a way that has already worked.

I want to bring in some points about Ofcom and the broadcasting code. In discussing the current framework, it is important to consider the framework that TV election debates would have to adhere to. Ofcom, as the independent communications regulator, already sets the standards for TV and radio programmes, and its code contains rules that apply to all those broadcasters it licenses, ensuring that news, in whatever form, is reported with due impartiality, accuracy and fair prominence of views and opinions. Crucially, it also includes specific rules on impartiality that apply during election periods, including the requirement for due weight to be given to the coverage of parties and independent candidates.

We can continue to have confidence in that regulatory framework, in that it supports the editorial independence of broadcasters and has already demonstrated an ability to deliver fair and politically neutral television election debates. An independent broadcasting system is in itself a democratic function that we enjoy, and are lucky to have, in this society, and I say again that Government intervention risks undermining that independence, of both the broadcasters and Ofcom. I note that the argument has been put that the same could be achieved through an independent debates commission, and I will come back to that point in a second.

First, however, I will deal with whether we should privilege one campaigning medium over another: should we privilege telly over other ways of communicating with each other? I am not convinced. Political parties use many mediums to convey their message to members of the public before a general election, and at every other time of year, and the public demand that. As I said earlier, this is absolutely a two-way matter between how the public choose to get their information, and ask to have it, and how parties can respond to that. It is very much a two-way process between parties and the public.

I, for one, am quite a fan of the good old-fashioned political canvassing method. I was out there in the very chilly Norwich weather on Saturday morning, knocking on doors—back to work in the new year, as I hope every Member in this room was. That is another way to get in touch with voters, and who am I to say that television is any better or worse? I do not attempt to make that judgment call, and I am sceptical of the call today suggesting that any one medium is better than another.

[Graham Stringer]

Does the Minister not accept that we already discriminate in legislation—possibly in favour, possibly against, depending on one’s point of view—against electronic media? We demand that they provide a platform for party political broadcasts and that they balance the different views during a general election campaign, but we do not apply that to any other form of media. There is already that separation and it would not, therefore, be changing the legislative framework very much to say that a platform for debates should be provided.

[Chloe Smith]

I agree, and I disagree. I respect how the hon. Gentleman has tried to bring the point to bear, but the point of detail he has chosen is about how, when any one medium is used, impartiality within it is ensured. That is admirable, and that is where I agree with him, but where I disagree is regarding further entrenching the choice of any one medium over another.

I will put this in a generational sense for the hon. Gentleman: television broadcasters are quite simply losing favour with the younger generation as their source of news. Why should we legislate at this point for a medium that will not necessarily remain favoured among those who are, and those who will become, the voters in elections to come? I am happy to substantiate that.

On how news consumption is going in the UK, a report by Ofcom stated that in 2018 alone 52% of 16 to 24-year-olds used Facebook as their news source while only 39% used BBC1. The report found that people in that age group were more likely to get their news from social media posts than directly from news organisations. In the face of that technological shift, I remain unconvinced that the case is made for privileging a form that one might almost argue had its heyday with Richard Nixon in the last century. Why should we privilege that form? I say Nixon; as has already been covered, it was thought that Kennedy won the debate, but that is the very point. It is a matter of history, and if we legislate at all we ought to look to the future rather than the past.

I will incorporate at this point the parliamentary example that I think was provided by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. Here we stand today having a debate in Parliament—in itself a form of political debate, a form of debate on political policy—and we do not expect it to be covered only on the TV, although it will capably be, and I am glad for that.

I certainly support the use of TV in Parliament and the accountability that we can provide by being on camera as we do our work. However, we also expect social media to carry part of that weight, and we also might well expect that some people would prefer to read about our proceedings via the written word. All of those are valid ways for people to get their information, and we should not privilege one over another.

Fourthly, I wanted to bring together some points about implementation and refer to a few that have been made in the debate. First, the proposal would require primary legislation. The point has already been made that if we anticipate a general election as far away as 2022, which of course is the case, we have time to look at the issue and get it right. However, even with that timescale, there are other pressing priorities that the public ask us to address through legislation, and I suspect that they would prioritise them over this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

As always. The proposal does require primary legislation, but not Government legislation. That is why I have taken the private Member’s Bill route, and all I ask the Minister is whether she would allow that debate to get a fair hearing, with no objecting, no filibustering, and no putting up people to stop it. Let us have the debate and a vote. Would she be open minded to that?

[Chloe Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Brennan]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman laughs at that point, but I say in all seriousness that if we privilege one campaign medium in law, the question follows whether we think it is important that people are compelled to take part in that activity. That is what we do when we put something into law.

Moving on to the suggested use of a quango to achieve the proposed objective, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon was not convinced that an independent debates commission would improve the current system. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton for also giving that issue some thought, although in the end he came down on the other side of the argument. I do not think that having a quango and simply calling it independent is the answer to every policy question. It raises many questions that are as yet unresolved. Who would appoint the members of such a body? How would it function? What would happen if political parties, or any figure involved with that body, disagreed with the suggested format? Those are all questions that would have to be bottomed out if we went for an independent debates commission format.

Other reports and research exist. Setting up an independent body is not a new proposal: it has been addressed in multiple reports, including a report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, which in 2014 published its findings on the broadcasting of general election debates. That Committee found no substantial evidence that an independent debates commission should be set up to oversee election debates. The report instead focused on recommendations for broadcasters that oversee election debates, such as making more use of the opportunity to inform voters and encouraging members of the public to be more interested in the electoral process.

Another interesting piece of work was published in 2015 by Professor Charlie Beckett of the London School of Economics. His findings highlighted the fact that a formal regulatory or legislative framework for TV debates is largely viewed as unrealistic and undesirable. He also raised questions about such a framework, including who would have the final say and how it might be adaptable to evolution in the political landscape.

I thank hon. Members for giving me the time to go through the arguments at some length. I also thank the petitioners, first and foremost, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for introducing the debate and allowing us to examine the arguments. We have heard a number of very good arguments on this topic, although to my ear they mainly focused on the way in which TV debates are good and helpful in themselves, rather than on the ins and outs of whether legislating for them is the way forward. Were we to consider a change to electoral law, those arguments would need to improve before making debates mandatory and making additions to an area of law that is already complex and precious.

Participating in TV election debates should continue to be a matter for political parties, and we should continue to view that as a two-way relationship, with the encouragement of voters. The delivery of such debates should remain in the hands of broadcasters, other publishers and, indeed, the public themselves, through social media and the other media of the future. I am a passionate promoter of people’s involvement in democracy, and I am honoured to be a steward of our electoral system. That is what leads me to conclude that we should let people decide for themselves what the formats of the future ought to be, rather than privileging one format at this point in time. In conclusion, I entirely trust the British people to be able to find the information that suits them to make their choices in elections and at election times. That is what I hope to see in elections of the future.