Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The purpose of the draft regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously more accessible for those who need it most. The regulations provide for changes to the parliamentary and local electoral registers in Northern Ireland, and those changes would apply to electors at parliamentary, Assembly and local government elections. It is important that the changes are applied UK-wide, and similar legislation for England and Wales and for Scotland is being debated and considered in Committee today.

As the local government electoral registers are a devolved matter in Scotland, the Scottish Government are proposing similar changes in the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday marked 100 years since legislation was introduced to give some women the right to vote in the UK. That was the first step to equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration continues. For some people, the fear of having their name and address on the electoral register is a barrier to registering to vote and engaging in democracy. It seems fitting today to debate changes that make it easier for vulnerable individuals to exercise their democratic rights, which were passionately fought for 100 years ago.

Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, but it was not extended at that time to Northern Ireland. Instead, section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 gave the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the power to make equivalent provision for Northern Ireland by Order in Council under section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—something with which you are deeply familiar, Mr Hanson.

[The Chair]

I took it through.

[Chloe Smith]

Very good—we are in good hands today, Mr Hanson, with your expertise in the Chair.

The Secretary of State’s power to make provision for anonymous registration in Northern Ireland was used for the first time to make the Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 2014. That extended many of the anonymous registration provisions in place for England, Wales and Scotland, and it is linked to a series of statutory instruments which amend the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 and which, taken together, implement the system of anonymous registration in Northern Ireland that applies to parliamentary, Assembly and local elections.

The scheme protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register—for example, victims of harassment or stalking, as well as some witnesses in criminal court cases. It is not available to those who simply want to keep their name and address private. Someone can register to vote anonymously if they can show that their safety, or the safety of someone else in their household, would be at risk if the electoral register contained their name and address. This is known as the safety test. An applicant must provide evidence that demonstrates that they meet the safety test to the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order, or an injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions, or an attestation, which is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professions listed in the legislation as qualifying officers, such as a superintendent of police or a director of social services.

About two years ago, Mehala Osborne, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. As a result, the Government announced in September 2016 that they would look closely at whether the current system of registering anonymously to vote could be improved, to make it easier for survivors of domestic abuse to register safely to vote. The Government consulted on potential changes to improve the accessibility of the anonymous registration scheme with domestic abuse charities, the electoral community, including the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, bodies representing potential attesters and others. The responses that the Government received were broadly positive, and the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland has been particularly keen to see the provisions implemented. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for all his hard work and passion to help make the changes a reality. The regulations make sensible changes that make the scheme more accessible for those who need it most.

Turning to the detail of the changes, the draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions that can be provided to the chief electoral officer as evidence, to demonstrate that an individual’s safety would be at risk. As evidence, applicants would be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders, made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. They would also be able to use domestic violence protection orders, made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or when they are brought into force in Northern Ireland, the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. Those are new and relevant orders that were not in place when the anonymous registration scheme came into force.

The draft regulations will broaden who can provide attestations that an individual’s safety would be at risk. The seniority required for an attestation from a police officer would be lowered from the rank of superintendent to the rank of inspector. That will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation. Inspectors are, of course, frequently in contact with survivors and well qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. Medical practitioners registered with the General Medical Council, and nurses and midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, would also be able to act as attesters. Again, those professionals are frequently in contact with survivors of domestic abuse and qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety.

Managers of refuges for those escaping domestic violence will now be able to act as attesters. That is important. All individuals who are resident in a refuge would then have easy access to an individual who can attest to the fact that their safety is at risk. Refuge managers are specialists in their field and well placed to attest whether an individual’s safety is at risk. They are in direct and sustained contact with domestic abuse survivors and are approachable, which helps to increase accessibility for those seeking to use the scheme.

The changes do not place a statutory duty on anybody to provide an attestation. However, the regulations widen the group of individuals qualified to attest, should they choose to do so. Overall, the changes ensure that the evidence required to register to vote anonymously reflects the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse. As I mentioned, the Government have consulted on the draft regulations with the Electoral Commission, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, representative bodies of newly qualified attesters and Women’s Aid. There is general agreement that the changes being brought forward are desirable to ensure that those whose safety would be at risk, if their names and addresses appeared on the register, are able to engage in our democratic system.

I would like to dwell on a few comments made within that consultation. We heard from Women’s Aid that they strongly welcomed the changes made by the statutory instrument, saying that,

“the proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse: that their voices matter, and their participation in politics matters”.

I think we should all agree with that. The draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system, making it easier to register to vote without a name and address appearing on the register. That may be a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live ones life and cast one’s vote to make a choice.

As Mehala Osborne said:

“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome the opportunity to put on record the technical reason why the draft regulations go as far as they do and not as far as some have publicly argued for. There are a number of reasons why the draft regulations do what they do, which is to extend the evidence basis, but not the amount of time for which a person can be on the register.

First—I suspect, technically, most importantly, although rather boringly—the provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and cannot be addressed through secondary legislation. That is the straightforward reason why the draft regulations do what they do. I think the Committee will be aware that primary legislation space is somewhat limited in Parliament at present, and while I hope I have given the Committee a firm understanding of how important these matters are, we thought it better to do what we can in secondary legislation, rather than pinning everything on a piece of primary legislation.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I want to push my hon. Friend a little bit more, if I may. Is she saying that, in principle, if the Government were able to find the time—I appreciate that time is scarce at the moment—they would be interested in pursuing changes to primary legislation in order to make renewals a simpler, more up to date and altogether more streamlined process?

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend kindly leads me on to the other two reasons I wanted to offer, which are matters of principle. First, when this scheme was originally introduced, Parliament’s intention was to support individuals with a current risk, rather than necessarily an historical risk. That is the difference between a one-year registration, which ought to be renewable, versus an indefinite registration. That is the question of principle that we are dealing with: should this be about those who face a current risk, as opposed to some form of historical risk?

I note that there is difference between the three statutory instruments we are debating today—I do not know whether other hon. Members beyond the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and me will be reconvening to debate the draft regulations for Scotland, and for England and Wales, on top of these for Northern Ireland—but it is the case that attestation in Northern Ireland lasts for five years, so our discussion is coming on to matters related to England, Wales and Scotland, which we will debate later in the day.

To complete the set with a third reason why we think that yearly renewal is appropriate in those other parts of the United Kingdom, electoral registration officers have a very important duty to maintain the accuracy of their registers, so there is an argument that if and when electors change their address the register needs to be updated. That is another argument for the concept of yearly renewal—or, renewal at all and, for the other parts of the UK, yearly-in this policy area. I have no doubt that we will return to the issue in the Committees on the other related draft regulations, because it is more appropriate to the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Let me say a word about refuges more broadly, because the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood raised the issue. In Committee, we all share the desire to see refuges working well to support victims. My colleagues in the Home Office are looking very closely at the matter. In Northern Ireland, refuges are funded by the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, through the Supporting People programme, administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I will therefore go into no further detail now, because it is a devolved matter. Suffice it to say that my colleagues, including the Home Secretary—who addressed the House yesterday on a range of issues to do with this year’s celebration, which we ought to be having, of women and their right to vote—are well aware of the need to support refuges well.

In closing off—I hope—the Committee’s questions, I note that the draft regulations apply to men as well. We talk principally perhaps about women when we think about refuges, but let us not forget that men too can be victims of domestic abuse. It is important to put on the record the fact that the regulations will be in place for all survivors of domestic abuse. With that, I hope that I have answered the questions that have been asked, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) regulations 2018

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to continue to serve alongside any hon. Members who are joining me for this marathon consideration of three statutory instruments in one day.

The purpose of the regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously for UK parliamentary elections in Scotland more accessible for those who need it most. They will also strengthen the integrity of the electoral register, and improve the registration system for electors. To give a little context, the draft regulations amend the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. The changes will cover the parliamentary electoral registers. As local government electoral registers are a devolved matter in Scotland, the Scottish Government are proposing similar changes in the Scottish Parliament. It is important that the changes are applied UK-wide, and similar legislation for England and Wales and Northern Ireland has been, and will be, debated and considered in Committee today.

Yesterday marked 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the right to vote in the UK. That was the first step to the equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration continues.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

This may be completely irrelevant, but you will be the judge of that, Ms McDonagh. Does the Minister know that the Americans gave such emancipation some two and half years after Britain? I thought that the Committee should note that.

[The Chair]

As Chair, I will be generous and broad in my interpretation of what is in the scope of the legislation.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Ms McDonagh, and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us that we may be seen as a pioneer. Let us hope that today we can all come together regarding this piece of the electoral system, and agree that we should press on further, which is what we are doing today.

Today’s legislation is about the fear of having one’s name and address appear on the electoral register, and how that can be a barrier to registering to vote, and therefore engaging in democracy. It seems fitting this week to debate changes that make it easier for vulnerable individuals to exercise their democratic rights. Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which amended the Representation of the People Act 1983 and provided for the overall structure of the scheme. The scheme protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register—for example, victims of harassment or stalking, and some witnesses in criminal court cases. An applicant must provide their local electoral registration officer with evidence that demonstrates that their safety would be at risk. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order or injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions, or what is known as an attestation. That is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professionals listed as qualifying officers, such as a police superintendent or a director of social services.

About two years ago, Mehala Osborne, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. As a result, the Government announced in September 2016 that they would look closely at whether the current system of anonymously registering could be improved to make it easier. The Government consulted on potential changes to improve the accessibility of the scheme with domestic abuse charities, the electoral community, bodies representing potential attesters and others. The responses that the Government received were broadly positive. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), for his hard work and passion in making the changes a reality. The instruments make sensible changes, which make the anonymous registration scheme more accessible for those who need it most.

Turning to the detail, the draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions that can be provided to an ERO—an electoral registration officer—as evidence to demonstrate that an individual’s safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the register. As evidence, applicants will be able to use domestic violence protection orders made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, once that is in force. They will also be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Those are new and relevant orders that have been created since the anonymous registration scheme came into force.

The draft regulations will also broaden who can provide attestations that the individual’s safety would be at risk. The required seniority for a police officer will be lowered from the rank of superintendent to the rank of inspector, which will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation. Police inspectors are frequently in contact with survivors and will be well qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. Medical practitioners registered with the General Medical Council and nurses and midwives registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council will also be able to act as attesters. Those professionals are again frequently in contact with survivors and are qualified to assess the level of risk.

Managers of refuges for those escaping domestic violence will also be able to act as attesters. Anybody who has been supported by a refuge would then have easy access to somebody who can provide the attestation. Refuge managers are specialists in their field and we think they are well placed to make the attestation. They are also in direct and sustained contact with domestic abuse survivors, making them approachable for those looking to use the scheme.

The changes make sure that the evidence required to register to vote anonymously is more reflective of the experiences of survivors of abuse. The Government have consulted on the draft regulations with the Electoral Commission, the Scottish associations of administrators, representative bodies of the newly qualified attesters and Women’s Aid. There is general agreement that the changes being brought forward are desirable to ensure the safety of those who would be most at risk, and to help them engage in our democratic system. Women’s Aid strongly welcomes the changes that the statutory instrument makes, saying that the proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse that their voice and their participation in politics matter.

The statutory instrument also makes further changes to the wider registration system, with the aim of improving electoral registration processes for the citizen and making it easier and more effective for EROs to administer. They also seek to improve the integrity of the system and the accuracy of the electoral register, by addressing two recommendations made in Sir Eric Pickles’s review on electoral fraud. In addition to Sir Eric’s recommendations, the incremental changes have been identified through extensive consultation with the electoral community—those on the coalface running elections and services. They put the citizen first and will help EROs to provide modern and efficient registration services.

The first proposed change addresses recommendation 14 in the Pickles review. It adds a statement to the paper application form that states that persons who are not eligible electors are ineligible to register to vote and that, in relation to nationality, applicants may be required to provide additional information, or otherwise checks may be carried out by the ERO against Government records. The change seeks to enhance the deterrent against applicants providing false information in respect of their nationality. It reminds the applicant that an ERO can and will seek further information to corroborate the information provided, where they may have concerns.

The second proposed change addresses recommendation 12 of the Pickles review. It adds a statement to the paper application form that informs applicants that their application may be delayed if they do not provide previous addresses at which they have ceased to reside within 12 months of the date of their application. That change aims to minimise the number of incomplete applications being submitted on paper forms. The provision of an applicant’s previous address is one of only two ways that an out-of-date and redundant entry can be removed from the register with only one source of evidence, and thus it serves as an important way to maintain the accuracy of the electoral register.

The third proposed change expands the number of sources of information that can be used by EROs to remove deceased electors from the electoral register. Where they have not been able to obtain a death certificate or a registrar notice, they will be permitted to use one of four further sources of evidence to support the decision to remove a deceased elector: information from a close relative, a canvass form, a care home manager or other local records. I hope the Committee agrees that using such information is an appropriate response to avoid unnecessary distress for the relatives of any deceased elector. It balances the need for evidence with the sensitivity of providing a service to the citizen that they would expect at such a difficult time, and it again helps EROs maintain the accuracy of the register.

Detailed consideration has been given as to whether that could increase the risk of fraud as part of the registration system, but we think that will be minimal. EROs are already required to use current sources of information before using the information sources permitted under the regulations. Also, EROs must be satisfied that the information they have received is accurate, and where they have any concerns at all they remain able to seek additional sources of information to support their decision.

The final proposed change to the registration system streamlines and simplifies correspondence that EROs are required to send to electors. These changes are designed to reduce the cost of the registration system and provide greater discretion to EROs to tailor their approach based on the needs of electors. This saving will be achieved by requiring additional information to be included in a first notification to an elector that their entry on the register is under review. That then allows the sending of a second notification, of the outcome of the review, to become discretionary. The regulations also make sending a notification of changes to an elector’s open register preference discretionary. That streamlines the process and brings it in line with other public and private services.

In summary, the draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system, in addition to this important change, in this centenary year, of being able to support survivors of domestic abuse. Making it easier for someone to register without their name and address appearing on the electoral register may appear a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live their life, to cast their vote and to make their choice. As Mehala Osborne said:

“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote.”

I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Ms McDonagh. First, I thank both the hon. Members who have spoken for their support and that of their parties for the measures. I am delighted that we all agree on the importance of doing this and are united in getting it done. I will answer a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I welcome her to her place, and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on many issues as time goes on.

I want to make a general point on refuge funding, which is where the hon. Lady began her remarks. It is important to note that responsibility for refuges is devolved for Scotland. For England and Wales, I can confirm that the Government have put aside a £20 million fund to support refuges. That will create more than 2,200 bed spaces and support more than 19,000 victims. That is important and valuable in the context of the concerns that she expressed. She will know that the most recent consultation on how refuges can be supported through the housing system has only recently closed and the Government will be looking at all the evidence submitted.

The hon. Lady asked whether the regulations could go further, in allowing for indefinite registration instead of the need to renew annually. I want to put on record the Government’s view, because that fair question has been asked outside as well as inside this place. The Government are, of course, mindful of the long-term risks that can be faced by domestic abuse survivors and I understand that in certain cases it might be difficult to return to completing paperwork every year.

I will offer three thoughts on the reasons behind our approach. The first is technical and most applicable. Provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and could not be tackled by the regulations before us. The Committee will recognise that work on primary legislation is at a premium in this Parliament so, regrettably, we have had to focus on what can be achieved through secondary legislation.

Secondly, I think the intention of Parliament at the time of the scheme’s introduction was to support individuals with a current risk, as opposed to an historical one. That is a point of principle rather than practicality. To be able to attest or provide evidence more regularly, or at all, as opposed to indefinitely, is important because it points to the existence of a current risk to an individual, rather than one in the past that might no longer be current.

The third reason is that EROs have a duty to maintain the accuracy of their registers. That is an underpinning duty within the democratic system. To lack an opportunity to check people with anonymous registration could make that duty more difficult. Yearly renewal supports EROs’ ability to keep accurate records of who resides where, even if that information is anonymous when the public part is issued.

The final point raised by the hon. Lady concerned deceased electors. She thought it disappointing that we were focusing on removing rather than adding electors. I will say to her gently that we are talking about dead electors. It is important for the accuracy of the register to remove deceased electors; I hope the Committee agrees. The Government want to see accurate and complete registers.

[Laura Smith]

I just want to say that in my speech and notes it definitely states that I agree with removing deceased people. My point was about putting more people on the register. I would like to put that on the record.

[Michael Fabricant]

Her job is saved!

[Chloe Smith]

I was confident that was the case. I am confident that the Committee is in full agreement that we want EROs to maintain an accurate and complete register. To explain those terms, the second, completeness, is what the hon. Lady is talking about. All those who are eligible to register are registered. That is the other of the twin aims of electoral registration.

I am delighted to report that accuracy and completeness are both at high levels—higher than when I previously held this role. We have seen those go up since introducing individual registration. I also point the hon. Lady to a document published just before Christmas by my predecessor about further democratic engagement and the ways in which we can ensure that those who belong to groups that might traditionally have been under-registered, such as some disabled people who, for various reasons, might have found it difficult to tackle the registration system, are able to take part.

We are setting out ways to welcome everybody who is eligible to register on to the registration system, which is very important. In that spirit, I return to the measures before us, which are about accuracy and completeness. Overall, it is about a sense of justice that those who have faced abuse should not lose their right to vote and we are making it easier for them to register.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee on Standards in Public Life

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Written Statements

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

In July 2017, the Prime Minister asked the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life to undertake a review into the issue of abuse and intimidation experienced by parliamentary candidates, including those who stood in the 2017 general election campaign. Concerns were highlighted by those across the political spectrum. The Committee published a comprehensive report in December.

The Government would like to thank the Committee on Standards in Public Life again for their considered and thorough report. The Prime Minister has today announced some initial measures based on the Committee’s findings and the Government will be publishing a substantive response in due course.

As the Prime Minister notes today, in public life, and increasingly in private conversations too, it is becoming harder and harder to conduct any political discussion, on any issue, without it descending into tribalism and rancour. Social media and digital communication—which in themselves can and should be forces for good in our democracy—are being exploited and abused, often anonymously. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. But a line is crossed when disagreement descends into intimidation.

Individuals standing for elected office

It cannot be right that people looking to participate in our democracy are subject to abuse and intimidation for doing so. The Government will therefore consult in due course on the introduction of a new offence in electoral law on intimidating candidates and campaigners. We also propose to remove the requirement for candidates for local government to include their home addresses on ballot papers, if they do not wish to do so. This extends the protection already offered to parliamentary candidates.

Online content

We want users to be better informed about how reported social media content is dealt with. We will establish a new annual internet safety transparency report, to improve our understanding of the offensive content being reported, how social media companies are responding to complaints, and what content is being removed.

The Prime Minister has today called on social media companies to set out how they will respond to the recommendations in the report, and we have been encouraged by the positive response we have seen thus far. It is welcome that social media companies have agreed to take forward the recommendation for a ‘pop up’ social media reporting team for election campaigns and they will actively provide advice and support to parliamentary candidates.

Political parties

The report has a number of recommendations for political parties, which they will wish to consider carefully. The Prime Minister has noted that the Conservative party is putting in place a new code of conduct for members and supporters that puts respect and decency at its core. The Prime Minister is encouraging the leaders of other parties to follow this example.

Law, police and prosecutors

The Committee made a number of recommendations for national police leadership bodies, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, on devolved operational policing matters. Both the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College will be responding to the Committee’s report separately, but we are pleased to confirm that they will implement each of the recommendations in the report that refer to them.

Some of these issues touch on devolved matters, and the UK Government will liaise with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations accordingly.

A more detailed response will be published by the Government in due course. Ministers would welcome further feedback from parliamentary colleagues, and the House may wish to debate and consider these matters further.

I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Prime Minister’s speech from today.

[HCWS452]

Contaminated Blood Inquiry

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress establishing the inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

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

The contaminated blood scandal of the ’70s and ’80s was an appalling tragedy that should never have happened. The victims and their families have endured so much pain and hardship and deserve answers as to how this could have happened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing this issue to the House today. I am also grateful for her leadership and for the leadership of right hon. and hon. Members across the House on the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which has done such consistent and constructive work on the issue. As she will know, I myself have been part of that group and have worked for my constituents, as I know all right hon. and hon. Members in the House have done.

As the House will know, following the Prime Minister’s announcement last July of an inquiry into these terrible events, the Department of Health launched a consultation on what the form and scope of that inquiry should be. I would like to thank all those who contributed to that process. We understand how difficult and painful describing these events must have been. The responses to that consultation were carefully considered by Cabinet Office officials and we listened to victims’ concerns. As a result, we confirmed that the inquiry would be statutory and established under the Inquiries Act 2005, and we moved sponsorship for it from the Department of Health to the Cabinet Office.

Before Christmas, we went further and announced that the inquiry would be chaired by a judge. We have asked the Lord Chief Justice to provide us with a nomination, and we hope to announce the name of that judge very soon. Once the appointment has been announced, the Cabinet Office will have early discussions with the chair about setting up the inquiry and will encourage them to quickly hold further consultations with the affected communities over the inquiry’s terms of reference.

I would like to add my personal commitment, and that of all my Government colleagues, to seeing this happen. This is a vital issue. We are all fighting on the same side to ensure justice for the victims of this terrible tragedy and scandal.

[Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me the urgent question. I also thank the Minister for her response and, of course, welcome her to her new post. I know that one of her constituents was affected by this scandal and that she understands what the issue is about.

Six and a half months have passed since the announcement of the inquiry. The previous Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), set out his intention to appoint a chair before Christmas. That did not happen. We were then promised a statement in the new year, but, after nearly a month, there has been no further progress. It took precious months, and an intervention from the former Bishop of Liverpool—and chair of the Hillsborough inquiry —to persuade the Government to move the inquiry from the implicated Department of Health. That was achieved by working with all those affected in a unifying way and it concerns me that the same approach has not been adopted in recent consultative meetings with the Cabinet Office.

Not only have we seen a change of Minister, but we understand from press reports that the senior civil servant responsible for the inquiry is due to leave the Cabinet Office. I therefore have three questions for the Minister. First, will she publish a clear timetable setting out when she intends to appoint a chair and agree the terms of reference and specifying the date on which those conducting the inquiry will meet? Secondly, will she commit herself to a “families first” inquiry, with evidence taken in regional hubs across the United Kingdom and with a public-facing inquiry secretariat working with all those affected? It is essential for the inquiry chair to adopt that approach and to be able to work alongside a panel of experts. Finally, will the Minister confirm that the terms of reference will be set independently by the chair, following a consultation with all those affected, and that they will cover the aftermath of the scandal rather than just the run-up to it?

This is a treatment disaster of huge proportions, in which the Government are implicated. It has already taken the lives of 2,400 people and has blighted the lives of many more. For those who have died in the last six months, justice delayed is justice denied. The lack of progress is causing huge distress and upset to the families affected. The Minister must take immediate steps to secure for this community the truth and the justice that they have been denied for far too long.

[Chloe Smith]

I have seen a copy of the letter that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) sent you this morning about the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I have therefore come prepared with responses to the points made in that letter. I hope to be able to deal with them now.

Let me begin by reiterating that we intend to make a further statement about the chair very shortly. I take the hon. Lady’s point that there should be no further delay. The Government are committed to getting this right and to getting it done as quickly as possible, for all the reasons that she has already given.

The hon. Lady suggested that this could have been done more quickly. It was important for the consultation launched by the Department of Health to be allowed to reach its conclusion, so that all who wished to contribute had a chance to do so. As soon as that was complete, an early decision was made to transfer the sponsorship to the Cabinet Office, in line with the strong feeling of respondents. I think it important that we listened and acted accordingly.

Following the written ministerial statements made by the Cabinet Office in November, the Prime Minister made a further statement before Christmas confirming that the inquiry would be judge-led, which reflects the gravity and complexity of the issues to be considered. Again, we listened to the respondents who had asked for it to be judge-led and agreed. We now understand the importance—the absolute, imperative importance—of getting the inquiry under way as soon as possible, and as I have said, we will make a further statement as soon as possible as well.

The hon. Lady asked about regional hubs and asked whether the inquiry would put families first. The Government will ensure that the inquiry has the resources that it needs to complete its work. It will, of course, also be independent of the Government, which was another theme that featured in her questions. I am therefore not in a position to answer every single one of her questions. It would be for an independent chair to answer all the questions she has asked: for example, her question about the fine detail of the terms of reference. However, given the sensitivity of the issues under consideration, the chair will no doubt be focused on ensuring that all those affected have every opportunity to participate in the inquiry process.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, the former First Secretary of State held a number of meetings with representatives from the affected communities. The Government will of course be more than happy to continue that engagement if it is necessary and, moreover, I am confident that the chair of the inquiry will take that up and want to hear views and testimony from all those affected across the UK.

The hon. Lady asked explicitly about the terms of reference. I expect that the chair will want to consult the affected community on those terms. Once the chair has done so and has made a recommendation to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, there will of course be a further statement to this House setting out what the scope of the inquiry will be.

I reiterate that I want to ensure that those affected get the answers they deserve as quickly as possible and that they receive what many have been asking for. This is a judge-led inquiry that will be independent and, I hope, effective in getting answers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Minister is new in post and has a phenomenal reputation in her previous Departments for getting things done. Will she now take a personal grip on this issue and give it the kick-start it needs?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for some, I think, undeserved compliments, but he is absolutely correct that I do personally wish to see this done. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has mentioned, like many other Members, I have constituents affected by this. I think this is a national disgrace and I want to see it put right. I do therefore bring the personal passion that has been asked of me to this and I have pressed my officials to move on this as quickly as we possibly can.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for raising this important issue and echo the concerns that she and others colleagues in this House have raised.

The victims of this appalling tragedy have been waiting decades for answers and for justice, and it is unacceptable that they are now having to wait even longer as the Government miss their own deadlines. That is simply not good enough. It has been over six and a half months since the Government first committed to an inquiry into this tragedy. Can the Minister today finally commit to a clear timetable for action, including for the appointment of a chair and setting the terms of reference, because “as soon as possible” is not going to be good enough for the families and victims who are listening to this statement, who have seen the issue kicked into the long grass for too long? Can the Minister also explain why the Government have failed to do so to date?

It is vital that families are put first and that the Government avoid the failings that have plagued the ongoing inquiries into child abuse and Grenfell, with the resulting loss of confidence in both. Will the Minister outline what lessons have been learned from these inquiries and how she intends to ensure that the voices of families and victims are heard throughout the inquiry process?

[Chloe Smith]

I believe I have already answered those questions in answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, but I reiterate that the Government expect to be able to announce the name of the judge leading this inquiry as soon as possible—very shortly indeed. Mr Speaker, you have already heard me refer to my personal interest in seeing this happen and the same goes for every member of this Government. This is too important an issue to play party politics with, which I am sure the hon. Lady on the Labour Front Bench was not doing. None the less, let me reiterate that I, too, want to see this done for the sake of victims and for the sake of those who have asked that this should be a judge-led inquiry. That means getting it right and taking the necessary time to do this properly—not more time than is necessary, but the right amount of time that is needed. I want there to be confidence that the inquiry will get to the root of the answers.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to set up a full inquiry and allocate a judge. There were 800 responses to the recent consultation, so can the Minister assure me that those people will all get an individual response and that families and victims will always be at the heart of this because they have waited for far too long for answers?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for her impassioned and thoughtful contribution. I would prefer to answer her question about individual responses once the Government have had a chance to discuss the matter with the chair of the inquiry. It is important that that person, once appointed, should be able to properly engage with victims and with those who have responded to the consultation, and indeed to do a small amount of further consultation, including on the terms of reference. That much was made clear in the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement to the House. I will return to my hon. Friend with a specific answer to her question, but I do expect the chair, once appointed, to take a close interest in properly answering those who have taken the time and effort to respond to the consultation, including those who are quite ill. As I said earlier, we are grateful to them for taking the time to do that, and I certainly want to see them well treated and respected in this process.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for asking this urgent question and I pay tribute to her work in continually pressing for justice for the victims and families affected by this tragic scandal. As others have pointed out, campaigners were told that the chair of the inquiry would be in place before Christmas, yet we are still waiting. When will this actually happen? Can we define “shortly”? After finally doing the right thing and taking the inquiry away from the Department of Health, will the Government now ensure that the inquiry looks into all matters, including documents, patient records and things that were altered and hidden? Will they also ensure that anything hidden behind public interest barriers will be opened up, so that light can be shed fully on this whole matter? Lastly, will the inquiry have broad enough terms of reference to allow those in Scotland to give evidence as well?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points on behalf of his party. I mentioned earlier that I expect the chair to be able to take evidence all the way around the UK, so I hope that that answers his last question. I also said earlier that the Government will of course ensure that the inquiry has the resources it requires. I will come back to him on the specific list of types of information that he just mentioned. Finally, to be absolutely clear, I am saying to the House today that we expect to be able to announce the name of the judge shortly. I am not able to give it greater definition than that, but I know that that will answer his first question, which others might also put. We expect to be able to announce that name shortly.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The Cabinet Office taking responsibility for this inquiry is a good thing. Will it also mean that the Department of Health can really be investigated fairly and rigorously?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister reassure families such as the Smiths, who lost their son aged just seven and who have fought tirelessly for justice and answers for decades, that the Government truly mean it when they say that there will be no further delay and that the public inquiry will get it right this time? These families have been through so much and we just cannot let them down again.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady speaks for many of us in our roles as constituency MPs. We all feel for those families and we can all relate their experience to other tragedies that we know of in our constituencies. I would very much like the word to go out to the Smith family and others who might be listening that, yes, we mean every word of what we are saying here today and that we all wish to see this inquiry completed with no further delay, as effectively as possible, so that they can get the answers they deserve and perhaps be able to move on from there.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for reaffirming in the House today her commitment to, and personal interest in, this issue. I also represent a constituent who has been suffering for decades, and I am sure that she will welcome the fact that this is a priority. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is also a priority for the Government as a whole, including her senior Cabinet colleagues, because I am sure that that message would be very welcome?

[Chloe Smith]

I most certainly can provide that reassurance to the House. Hon. Members will know from the fact that it was the Prime Minister herself who laid the written ministerial statement that the passion for resolving this issue and being able to move an inquiry forward goes right to the top of the Government, as should absolutely be the case. We are all agreed that this is a tragedy that should never have happened, and we are determined to see it put right.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her tenacity in following up this issue. I do not doubt for a minute the Minister’s commitment to wanting to see the situation resolved, but she has been sent here today, after the matter had been kicked into the long grass, to tell us that the Government are deliberating what lawnmower to use. The Department of Health’s interference in the terms of reference was wholly unwelcome, and if the inquiry is to be independent, the judge leading it must set the parameters regarding what happened prior to the incidents and how people were treated afterwards. The judge must set their own terms of reference.

[Chloe Smith]

Indeed, and that was why I was unable to answer the question of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who asked me to provide the terms of reference to the House or to provide a timetable for when I would do so. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that it will be for an independent judge to do all those things, and rightly so.

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analogy about cutting grass—in fact, I think it makes light of the situation. The fact is that we have listened and responded to the concerns of those who thought that the Department of Health was not the correct body to run things. We have listened and responded to those who have said that they would like a judge to lead the inquiry. We are doing the right things in response to what victims have asked for, and while it will take a little time to put all that in place, I hope that the correct answers will be delivered.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Inquiries Act 2005, under which this inquiry will be established, imposes legal obligations on the Government to consult with the devolved Governments. The Minister has recent experience in Northern Ireland, so how will that happen there while there are no Ministers? It is all very well to consult civil servants, but there is a legal obligation to consult Ministers, so I would be grateful if she clarified the situation.

[Chloe Smith]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that important point. He will have heard me say that the inquiry and the judge who leads it will, of course, want to engage with victims from all over the UK, but it might be simplest if I write to him with the specific legal answer that he seeks regarding how that would be properly carried out in respect of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for asking this urgent question and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Despite losing their son many years ago, my constituents Maureen and Les Dodd were only able to come and see me thanks to the intervention of Mr Andy Burnham, the former Member for Leigh. They said that their son, Graeme Jonathan Dodd, was

“courageous, witty, funny and inspirational”.

I know that the Minister will be thinking of all those who have lost someone. Has she read Bishop James Jones’s report into the experience of the Hillsborough families? There are many lessons to be learned, so will she ensure that a copy is distributed to all the officials who work on the forthcoming inquiry?

[Chloe Smith]

I have not yet had a chance to read that report, but I am happy to look at it and to share it with officials.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There are nearly 300 sufferers of the scandal in Wales. Given that health is a devolved matter, will the Minister commit to ensuring not only that there is a voice for Welsh families, but that full consideration is given to the aftermath of the inquiry and the implications for health services in Wales?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady raises that point because, along with the comments of colleagues from Scotland and Northern Ireland, it allows us to begin to get the full picture of what is required across the devolved nations. I do not think that I can speak for the judge in saying how he or she will constitute the inquiry or select those who will conduct the inquiry alongside him or her, so I am unable to answer the question whether there will be a Welsh voice. However, I reiterate that I certainly expect the judge to be able to listen to Welsh victims, and I say that with no hesitation whatsoever, because it is absolutely the right thing to do. As I have said to other colleagues, if it would be helpful, I will be happy to get back to the hon. Lady should there be more detailed questions about the relationship with the devolved nations.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Like the Minister, I have constituents who are affected by this terrible situation. I welcome the letter I received today from the Prime Minister confirming, as the Minister has today, that the families will be consulted on the terms of reference before they are set.

A constituent, whom I had not met before but who had written to me, stopped me in the street back in the autumn and tellingly said, “We have been victims once. We don’t want to be victims again because of prevarication or other circumstances.” Will the Minister take that on board and, particularly thinking of my constituent in Blackpool, will she take on board the need, as some have suggested, for regional hubs so that people who either are not able to come to London—or, frankly, are not capable of coming to London—will have a proper opportunity to have their voice heard?

[Chloe Smith]

I very much sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am glad his constituent has been able to have his voice echoed in the Chamber today.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point for many of us. We can all think of constituents who are too ill to travel and have been too ill for too long. It has taken too much time to put this right over the many years since the 1970s and ’80s. It is a good thing that it is now being put right and that there will be a judge-led inquiry. I will ensure that the judge who is appointed hears that reflection from the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

For the benefit of the House, I reiterate what was in the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement:

“We can assure…everyone who contributed that the findings will be passed to the proposed chair to help inform the discussions regarding the draft terms of reference, on which we expect there will be further consultation.”—[Official Report, 21 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 63WS.]

I reassure the House that there will be that further level of involvement, which is appropriate and important.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that this is a matter that affects the whole House? I would not think there is an MP whose constituents have not been affected one way or another. Is she also aware that this goes back to the mid-1970s—as far back as Callaghan’s Government and perhaps even Wilson’s—and that what is effectively a cover-up has been carried on under all Governments since? This is an all-party issue.

To this Government’s credit, we finally have an inquiry that I believe we first called for during the very first Backbench Business Committee debate—you were in the Chair, Mr Speaker. Coming now to the present, having taken this initiative, it is vital that the Minister now sees to it that the inquiry is genuinely independent and that there is no withholding of documents, because the prevailing attitude that we have come up against is of the retention of sensitive documents by both the Department of Health and the NHS itself. No public indemnity certificate or anything of that kind should be used to prevent us from getting at the truth of what happened.

[Mr Speaker]

I remember that first Backbench Business debate on the matter well, including, if memory serves me correctly, a Government Whip rather impertinently rebuking me for the non-selection of a Government amendment. I do not think he quite realised at the time that we were into new territory. The clue is in the title: Backbench Business. There was no requirement to select a Government amendment, especially a wrecking one.

[Chloe Smith]

I, too, remember speaking on behalf of my constituents in a Backbench Business Committee debate, as many of us have done.

I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for his contribution, and for his recognition that this is a cross-party affair. It has been because of the length of time—decades—it has taken to get to today. I particularly welcome his recognition that the Government are now acting and that they, in his words, deserve credit for doing so.

As I said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), there are certain categories of documents that will be desirable when executing this inquiry. As I said before, the Government will give the inquiry all the resources necessary, so that it can complete its work. We would all wish to see an inquiry that is comprehensive, independent and effective for the families who need answers after too many years.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spoken before about the experiences of my constituent David and others who have been affected by this tragedy, and this is also of great interest to members of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, given the number of individuals who were infected by HIV, some of whom of course went on to develop AIDS and to die from it, in a national disgrace. I must press the Minister further: can she say whether we are talking about days, weeks or months until the judge is appointed and the inquiry gets under way?

[Chloe Smith]

We are talking about this happening very shortly—it certainly will not be months—and I look forward to being able to make an announcement to the House.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

My constituents just want this over, so that they can get their lives back on track. Will the Minister confirm that when she does appoint the judge, they will be working full time on this? Does she anticipate when recommendations will finally be made?

[Chloe Smith]

Unfortunately, I am not able to answer that question, as I do not have the answer with me today, but I will make sure that either I or the Secretary of State writes to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

On behalf of my party, I welcome the Minister to her post. I recognise the constructive nature of her answers. Will she guarantee that groups such as the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust and TaintedBlood will be fully consulted on the contaminated blood inquiry?

[Chloe Smith]

As I have said, the Government have already committed, through the statement that the Prime Minister made to the House in December, to further consultation with those affected, so that the terms of reference can be set and the chair can commence their work. I certainly expect that that will involve individuals affected—or, indeed, family members—and representative groups.

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

As the Minister is aware, there is a two-tier approach for the families affected. Will she be able to look at the postcode lottery that exists for different people now? As she has said, many people are very ill right now and there are differing patterns across the UK. Will she look at bringing those approaches into alignment, perhaps even in advance of the review?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. I shall pass it to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care who remain responsible for the policy on victims and the funding, as it operates today. The inquiry, about which I am answering today, is about how the situation came about and the more historical nature of things, but I shall ensure that her questions, which are of course in the minds of many hon. Members in relation to constituents who are suffering now, are heard by the Department, as it might be able to provide her with an answer.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Minister must be tolerant if there is a cynicism about the “shortly”. An urgent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) brought us here in July, when we asked urgently for the inquiry to be moved into the orbit of the Cabinet Office, but that took four months to do. We were promised a judge in December, but we are still waiting. Given that we are now at the end of January, does “shortly” mean before the end of February? Can we at least give ourselves some hope that we will not need another urgent question from my hon. Friend to bring us back here again, nagging for a decision?

[Chloe Smith]

Mr Speaker, I do not think we will need to trouble either you or hon. Members for another urgent question. I do expect us to be able to return promptly to the House with an update—the update that the House rightly asks for and our constituents and the victims of this scandal rightly require. We are working hard and fast so that victims come first and can be served by a judge as quickly as possible.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

With respect, the Minister has said nothing to advance this matter today. I have been supporting affected constituents with declining health for eight years, which sounds like a long time but is a fraction of the time that victims have waited for justice. Does she now regret the four-month delay in moving the inquiry from the then Department of Health to the Cabinet Office, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked for last July?

[Chloe Smith]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s tone is helpful. I have endeavoured to answer every question as constructively as I possibly can. I think I have made clear my personal commitment, as well as the Government’s, to ensuring that the matter is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible for the benefit of the victims, for whom every hon. Member present wishes to speak. The Government have listened and responded by making the inquiry judge-led, which is the right thing to do. They have listened and responded by removing responsibility for the inquiry from the Department of Health and giving it to the Cabinet Office. It has been important to take what little time has been needed to get that right, so that we can have a better inquiry that better responds to what victims have been asking for.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I join others in welcoming you back to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his work in bringing these affairs to the House’s attention today. If Members present have not already taken a look at the Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, I encourage them to do so. We clearly state that the Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of conduct for Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers, and we believe that the rules and procedures in place are proportionate and adequate. We look forward to working with the Committee to do more, however, and I put on the record my willingness to work with its Chair to do so.

[Mr Jenkin]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the Front Bench in her new position at the Cabinet Office, to which she brings considerable experience, including of this issue. However, I have to express my disappointment at the Government’s response. Some minor amendments were accepted, but it regards the system as the highest example of regulation and openness when it simply does not deliver the public confidence that we want. I appreciate that this is a vexed issue and that we do not want to deter people from coming into the public service for fear of being treated unfairly on the way out, but the present arrangements are inadequate. The response even refused to put more explicitly into the ministerial code words such as

“You must… take decisions in the public interest alone”

and

“You must… never allow yourself to be influenced in contracting, procurement, regulation or the provision of policy advice, by your career expectations or prospects if you leave the public service”

and

“You must not… take up any post outside the public service in businesses or [commercial] organisations operating in areas where you have been directly responsible”.

I do not understand why those things cannot be put explicitly in the ministerial code so that they are talked about and understood, which would begin to change the attitudes that unfortunately pervade many of the Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in Whitehall.

Draft European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2018 Draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

[Chloe Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Moon.

The purpose of the regulations is to make changes to the procedure for filling MEP vacancies in Great Britain and Gibraltar to reduce the likelihood that a European parliamentary by-election will be required in the run-up to the UK leaving the European Union. Following the referendum, the UK will be leaving the EU. The Prime Minister is clear that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the EU on 29 March 2019. After the UK has left the EU, we will no longer have Members of the European Parliament, and we will no longer participate in European parliamentary elections. While the UK remains a member of the EU, however, we are obliged to make arrangements to fill any MEP vacancies that may arise—for example, due to the resignation or death of a sitting MEP.

Electoral law provides that in Great Britain and Gibraltar a vacant MEP seat will stay with the party that won the seat at the previous European parliamentary general election, and it is filled with reference to the unelected candidates on that party’s list of candidates at that election in the region where the vacancy arises. If it is not possible to fill a vacant seat from the winning party’s list because there is nobody else left on it who is willing or suitable to take up the seat, a by-election is held to fill the vacancy. I should say that a different system applies in Northern Ireland, and I will cover that later.

To date, no by-elections have been needed to fill a vacancy as it has been possible to fill vacant seats from the relevant party list. We consider, though, that in some areas there is now a significant risk of a by-election being necessary due to the number and circumstances of the candidates remaining on some party lists. For example, in the east midlands region, there are two candidates remaining on each of the lists for the Conservatives and UKIP. The cost of a by-election would be around £10 million. In the north-east, there is one candidate remaining on the Labour party list. The cost of a by-election there would be around £5 million.

In Scotland, there are four candidates on the SNP list, although it is not clear whether they would all be willing or able to take up a vacant seat. Two are MPs, and an MP cannot also be an MEP. The cost of a by-election in Scotland would be around £13 million. I am sure that Members understand why those figures vary; it is not because of the parties I have mentioned, but because of the circumstances of the regions. As a further example, UKIP won a seat in Wales in 2014. Although there are three persons on its reserve list, we think there might be difficulties in filling any vacancy that might arise, which could lead to a by-election being necessary. The cost of a by-election in Wales would be around £7 million.

I am sure Members are beginning to see the point of the regulations. As this European Parliament gets closer to its end, existing MEPs might consider standing down from the role to pursue opportunities elsewhere, which will increase the risk of a by-election being necessary if it is not possible to fill vacant seats from those candidates on the relevant party lists.

The Government consider that, in the circumstances, there is strong justification for taking action to reduce the likelihood of a by-election occurring before the UK leaves the EU. As I have indicated, there would be significant financial costs to the public purse in holding a by-election. Given that the UK will be leaving the EU, the turnout at such a poll could be low and electors might query the value of holding it.

The statutory instruments therefore make sensible, precautionary changes to the process for filling vacant MEP seats. They will reduce the likelihood of any costly by-elections in Great Britain. The instruments provide that if a vacancy cannot be filled from the list of candidates for the party that won the seat at the previous round of elections, the party that holds the vacant seat may instead nominate a person to fill the vacancy and be returned as an MEP for that party.

Turning to the detail of the proposed changes, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2018 amend the regulation-making powers in section 5 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 concerning the procedure for filling vacant MEP seats. Using the new powers, the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018 amend the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004, which set out provisions governing the conduct of European parliamentary elections in Great Britain and Gibraltar.

The proposed changes in the European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018 address the position whereby a vacancy has arisen and it is not possible for the regional returning officer to fill the vacant MEP seat from the list of the party that won the seat in the region at the previous election.

As I briefly mentioned, under the proposed changes, where the outgoing MEP stood for a registered party, the RRO will still initially seek to fill the vacancy through approaching in turn the reserve candidates on the party’s list of candidates for the relevant region. If the RRO is unable to fill the vacancy from the party list because that list is exhausted, that will no longer trigger a by-election. Instead, the RRO must ask the nominating officer of the party that previously won the seat to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat and be returned as an MEP for that party. The person must meet the existing requirements to be an MEP—for example, in terms of age and nationality.

Under the proposed changes, the nominating officer must respond within 28 days to the RRO, giving the name of the person who is to fill the vacant seat. In the event of the nominating officer being unable to nominate a person within 28 days, a by-election will be held to fill the vacancy. We think it extremely unlikely that a party will not be able to nominate a person to fill the vacancy within the 28 days and so cause a by-election. The regulations make similar provision for independent candidates and jointly nominated candidates.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Can the Minister help me a little? Pardon my ignorance of this matter, but people are elected as part of a party list, yet they can apparently resign from the party and retain their seat in the European Parliament. Is it the case that the regulations will not affect that situation? Can a person no longer be a member of a party but still retain their seat, despite the fact that the public, as in the case of the north-east of England, voted for a party and that person has resigned and is now an independent? In that case, will that person retain their seat, meaning that the provisions do not have to be put in place?

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman in two ways: for giving me the chance to finish my cough sweet—he will be able to hear I am struggling somewhat—and for giving me the instance that he had in mind when he raised his question. I believe his point is correct: the regulations do not change that existing scenario. If Members want to discuss what will happen if a person, under a future scenario, became an independent, for example, and so ceased to represent the party for which they originally took their seat, we can do so, but I do not believe the regulations change the particular instance the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

The changes are modelled on the process that Parliament previously agreed for filling MEP vacancies in Northern Ireland; it has been successfully used to fill a vacant seat there. I should explain that the single transferable vote is used for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, which differs from the system used in Great Britain. Under STV, there are no party lists and in the event of a vacancy the nominating officer of the party that previously won the seat will nominate the person to be the new MEP. They will then be returned to the seat by the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland.

We have consulted on the instruments with the Electoral Commission and others, such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Government of Gibraltar. There is general agreement among those whose views were sought on the instruments that it is desirable to avoid a European parliamentary by-election across a region just before the UK leaves the EU.

Our law provides that if a vacancy occurs less than six months before the next European parliamentary election, the seat remains vacant until that election and it is not necessary for a by-election to be held. We are maintaining that position, but without the changes there would be a period of almost a year when it would be necessary to hold a by-election if a vacant seat could not be filled from the candidates on the relevant party list.

In summary, the statutory instruments make sensible and proportionate changes to the process for filling vacant MEP seats. The changes are designed to reduce the likelihood of any costly European parliamentary by-elections being required in Great Britain before the UK leaves the EU. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I appreciate the Committee’s comments and welcome its support for the regulations. Of course, I will keep a close eye on the brief, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith asks—that is absolutely my intention in taking up this new role. I thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood for her welcome, and I look forward to working with all the Opposition spokespeople on such issues.

As the hon. Lady set out, this is the right thing to do at this moment because it gives us stability as we consider the UK’s exit from the EU. I do not intend to dwell on the party political points that have been made, except to remind the hon. Lady that it was a Labour Government who brought in the process for filling MEP vacancies in Northern Ireland, which forms the basis of the proposed model, as I outlined. I do not think that we have a party political argument worth having, but we do have something worth looking at in the public interest—the cost of holding by-elections and the appetite for votes that might be regarded as having little value as we approach the UK’s exit from the EU.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North about politicians who become independents —that point was, I think, repeated—such a person could remain as an independent. If they in turn subsequently vacated the seat, the original party from which they moved—the party that could be seen to have won the original election—would fill the seat, so the process that we are talking about would pass back to the hands of the original party, even if a person had become an independent in the meantime.

That is well in line with the principles of democracy that we should be looking to, because the people had their choice at the original election, albeit under the list system, and they chose between the parties. That choice is emphasised in these regulations.

I commend the regulations to the Committee and thank it for its support.

Question put and agreed to.

draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 2018.—(Chloe Smith.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

2. What steps the Government are taking to maintain the security and integrity of the electoral registration process.

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

Every application to the electoral register is now subject to identity verification checks, making our system more secure than before. In late December, the Government laid draft legislation aimed at further improving the registration process, including addressing recommendations from the Pickles review of electoral fraud.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Last month, a 21-year-old man was convicted of voting twice—first by post, and then by varying his name and voting in person. He then bragged about it on Twitter. I understand that more than 1,000 similar complaints are being dealt with by the Electoral Commission, mostly relating to students. What steps are the Government taking to deal with this distortion of our democracy?

[Chloe Smith]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns and am glad that he has brought those examples to light. I understand that, following the examination of these reports—or perhaps of reports other than those to which he refers—the Electoral Commission has stated that there is

“a lack of evidence of widespread abuse.”

None the less, we will continue to work with the police and the Electoral Commission to reduce the risk of double voting.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. Does she agree that the electoral process, particularly in Northern Ireland, was severely corrupted some eight months ago by thousands upon thousands of proxy vote applications? The previous Member for Foyle, Mr Mark Durkan, lost his seat as a result of thousands of proxy vote applications that were approved without any electoral or photographic identification.

[Chloe Smith]

I struggled to hear the hon. Gentleman owing to some noises off. As he knows, and as he knows I know, the electoral system in Northern Ireland is devolved. I am sure that my new ministerial colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office will be taking his concerns very seriously and working with the devolved Administration, where appropriate, to look into them.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the Front Benchers to their new responsibilities. I am delighted to see the strong team in the Cabinet Office.

Is the Minister giving any consideration to restricting registration for national elections to one address, which may help with the problem of double voting raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her views. I refer to the breadth of the Pickles review of electoral fraud, which gave us the basis for a number of reforms of our electoral system, all designed to reduce fraud and improve security. In that context, I will look carefully at all its recommendations. As you will know, Mr Speaker, the Government have already accepted and will be moving forward with a number of them. I would be delighted to discuss any issue further with my right hon. Friend.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

One of the ways in which the Government could look to give more security to the electoral register is by moving to automatic registration when national insurance numbers are given out. Will the Minister comment on the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), which would resolve any issues with individual registrations?

[Chloe Smith]

I am very well aware of the arguments, although I confess that at this point, 24 hours into my role, I have not yet had a chance to study that particular private Member’s Bill. I shall be happy to do that and take up the conversation from that point.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I, too, welcome the Minister to her post? She is the fourth I have had the privilege of facing in the past two years.

The biggest threat to the integrity of the electoral registration process is the fact that millions of our citizens are not on the electoral register. All the Minister’s predecessors promised that they would bring forward proposals to address this problem. We were told that there would be a plan at Easter last year, then in the summer, then in December, but still nothing. When will she bring forward proposals to make sure that we can increase the number of people on the register?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in fact we have near-record levels of participation in our democracy. Voter turnout has risen. The completeness and accuracy of the electoral register have improved. There have been 30 million new registrations to vote since the introduction of IER—individual electoral registration—in 2014. Seventy-five per cent. of those used the “Register to vote” website, which I am sure he will agree is an important reform. The electoral register for the 2017 general election reached a record level of over 46 million electors. I do not agree with his assessment.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can access opportunities to secure Government contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that democratic processes are protected against foreign influence.

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

The first duty of the Government is of course to safeguard the nation, and we take the security and integrity of our democratic processes very seriously. Although we have not seen evidence of successful foreign interference, we are not complacent, and we will continue to do what is necessary to protect ourselves.

[Jeff Smith]

In order to protect ourselves, the chair of the Electoral Commission has said that we need new rules for online political advertising to combat external influence, particularly via Facebook and Twitter. When will the Government bring forward the legislation we need?

[Chloe Smith]

One of the very first things for me to do in my new role is to meet the Electoral Commission, and I look forward to discussing that with it.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I welcome the new Minister. Does she agree that one of the ways of reducing foreign influence in our democratic processes would be for Members of this House not to go on Russia Today and Sputnik, and indeed be paid money for doing so?

[Chloe Smith]

Hearing from the right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the heady days during the coalition Government when we served in and around the Cabinet Office together. His question reminds us that there are hon. Members who seem to feel the need to do as he says. I think it would be more helpful if we recalled the words of the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech, which were that we should be well aware of what Russia seeks to do and should seek to protect to the UK from it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

5. What steps the Government are taking to support people with disabilities to access the electoral registration process.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to support people with disabilities to access the electoral registration process.

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

The Government are considering the responses to our call for evidence on the accessibility of the voter registration system. We have recently released the Government’s plan for democratic engagement, which includes strategies for disabled electors. The Government have also implemented the findings of an accessibility review of the website “Register to vote”.

[Jim Shannon]

For those who are disabled physically and visually who want to carry out a normal role in voting like the rest of us, will the Minister confirm that those who have disabilities and are in wheelchairs can gain access to polling stations and that ballot papers in Braille are available for those who are visually disabled?

[Chloe Smith]

Notwithstanding the caveat that in Northern Ireland the system is devolved and in some ways different from that in Great Britain, we certainly should not regard people with disabilities as in some way restricted in using the voting system in one way or another. Polling stations are equipped with, for example, tactile voting devices. More broadly, there are arguments around whether Braille brings some opportunity to identify a voter, but I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question and would look forward to any further conversation he would like to have.

[Damien Moore]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. In my constituency of Southport, three excellent schools specialise in teaching children with autism as well as behavioural and learning disabilities. Does she agree that encouraging children with those conditions to learn about our political structure will make them more likely to engage with the electoral systems as adults?

[Chloe Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad he has raised those points. My predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), did excellent work in the Every Voice Matters project where he focused on this as a matter of social justice. Of course, the citizen—any citizen—should be at the heart of voting and able cast their vote as a matter of public service.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the level of Government procurement from small businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. If the Government will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to provide that same sex marriages issued in England, Wales and Scotland are recognised as marriages in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chloe Smith)]

My position on this issue is clear: I voted in support of same-sex marriage in England and Wales and, like the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I hope that this can be extended to Northern Ireland in future. I believe marriage should be a common right across the UK. However, the fundamental position remains that same-sex marriage is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland.

[Ged Killen]

If my husband and I stick to our plans to retire one day to his home town in Northern Ireland, upon my death, my better half would lose a husband in every sense of the word. The registry confirms that no reference to the marriage will be included on any certificate issued and my husband would be recorded simply as a surviving civil partner—years of marriage wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Does the Minister agree that, if the Democratic Unionist party is so keen on having no regulatory divergence from the UK, this is a good place to start?

[Chloe Smith]

I very much sympathise with this issue and share the frustration encapsulated in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, this is not the time to be unpicking the devolution settlement on this issue. It is, rightly, an issue for a future Executive to return to and look at. We hope that the Executive can be brought back to do that and deal with many other important issues.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I would welcome assurances from the Minister that she and the Secretary of State have already met the leaders of the four main Churches in Northern Ireland to discuss the sensitive issue of the recognition of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. That assurance would be very helpful.

[Chloe Smith]

I can certainly confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department have regular contact with Church leaders. As I said, it is an important issue, but it really is an issue for a future devolved Government to look at.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Irish Government on a frictionless border on the island of Ireland to inform the UK’s negotiations with the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chloe Smith)]

We speak regularly with counterparts in the Irish Government on a range of issues. As the Prime Minister has said, we will maintain the common travel area, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and no new borders within the United Kingdom.

[Tony Lloyd]

I am grateful both to the Secretary of State and to the Minister for making it very clear that there will be no hard borders within the island of Ireland and no hard borders between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Will she make it very clear that a hard Brexit for the United Kingdom would be incompatible with the statement that she has just made? It is important that we have that clarity.

[Chloe Smith]

The Prime Minister has given that clarity. She was at this very Dispatch Box only earlier this week saying that we need not speak in terms of hard or soft Brexit. What we are out to do is to get the best possible deal for all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Is it not the case that there already are different tariffs, for example, on petrol and diesel, and yet there is an open border? Surely the best way to ensure that there is an open border is to have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the rest of the European Union.

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend; I mean my hon. Friend—

[Michael Fabricant]

It should be right hon.

[Chloe Smith]

Quite right. My hon. Friend is correct on two counts. The first is that, of course, there is already co-operation across the border. He mentions the way that we need to be able to deal with fuel, for example, on the two sides of the border. He is also absolutely correct that what we want is a free trade agreement—a comprehensive deal—which is laid out in the agreement that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels. That is the work ahead.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Minister, in recent comments, the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Varadkar, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Coveney, have indicated that they will draw a border down the middle of the Irish sea. May I say that those sorts of comments do not give much confidence back to the people of Northern Ireland and the Unionist community that I represent, who want to be an integral part of the United Kingdom?

[Chloe Smith]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we in this House want to see no new borders inside the United Kingdom. We think that the Union is a precious thing that must be preserved. I will also just note, as I did to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), that the relationship that we have with the Irish Government and that we want to continue to have with them should be one of close partners. We should work together to ensure the prosperity of the people in Northern Ireland, and I shall leave it to the Irish Government to continue to hold that strong relationship with us.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well done.

[Chloe Smith]

To keep the answer short, this should be a shared endeavour to ensure a future trade deal that has benefits for the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom. That is what we want to see.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. If his Department will provide the evidential basis that a free trade deal similar to the one that Canada negotiated with the EU will maintain the border on the island of Ireland under its current terms after the UK leaves the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chloe Smith)]

This Government are committed to building an economy that is fit for the future right across the United Kingdom. That is clear from our industrial strategy and from the benefits for Northern Ireland in the Chancellor’s Budget. Ultimately, though, the key requirement for stronger growth is political stability, and I return to the theme that we should see devolution restored.

[Jo Churchill]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent labour figures for Northern Ireland showing 3.9% unemployment, which is down from over 7% in 2010? Does she agree that yesterday’s CBI study, which exemplifies the fact that this country is ready to grow and provide jobs, is a testament to Northern Ireland businesses growing a strong economy?

[Chloe Smith]

I join my hon. Friend in remarking on the important figures. The unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is now down to 3.9% from over 7% in early 2010. Indeed, it is lower than the rate for the UK as a whole. That is, indeed, thanks to many businesses in Northern Ireland creating jobs, but it is also down to a Government who take a balanced approach to public spending, unlike the Labour party, and we wish to see more of that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

A strong economy requires stable politics. Does the Minister agree with this week’s editorial in the News Letter—Britain’s oldest running newspaper—which states categorically that Her Majesty’s Government need to “slap down” Mr Coveney, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, because the comments he is making are destabilising the economy of Northern Ireland?

[Chloe Smith]

The simplest thing to say is that we stand fully behind the Belfast agreement. We do have a strong relationship with the Irish Government that we wish to continue. My hon. Friend is right that political stability is required for a strong economy. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), the Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. We would like to see a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland who are able to do the same.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Pound—get in there, man.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.

Well, this is all very well, but the Secretary of State referred to yesterday’s statement by the Northern Ireland civil service that is casting a dark pall over Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say that, when the Government suggest ways of balancing the books by February, they will rule out scrapping the free bus pass, scrapping education maintenance allowance or even—heaven forfend—reintroducing prescription charges?

[Chloe Smith]

There are indeed important challenges to be faced in order to secure sustainable finances in Northern Ireland for the long term. Tackling those challenges requires political decisions, which is why we should all wish to see a restored Administration in Stormont.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

7. What estimate the Government have made of the number of customs officers that will be required to conduct border checks in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I know the whole House will want to join me in wishing Wales luck ahead of the Euro 2016 semi-final this evening. They have played superbly and we wish them all the best.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Chloe Smith]

I am a Conservative because I believe it is not where you are coming from, it is where you are going that counts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity to succeed no matter what your background is what we want for Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Making sure that all our citizens have life chances to make the most of their talents should be the driving mission for the rest of this Parliament. Yesterday at Cabinet we were discussing the importance of boosting the National Citizen Service, which will play a key role in giving young people the confidence and life skills to make the most of the talents that they undoubtedly have.

Voter Registration

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

It is a shame to bring a note of discord to what was otherwise a reasonably consensual discussion. If it were not for our online voter registration system, people would not be able to vote up to a midnight deadline at all. The website collapsed because of the success of online registration, and the huge demand for participation in this incredibly important referendum. The United Kingdom is much, much larger than just Scotland, and the scale of the challenge is more significant. That is why we are taking action to ensure that registration means that people can vote on 23 June.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I am proud to have been the Minister who introduced online registration, which I think has been a great step forward in our democracy. I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who thinks that individual electoral registration is problematic, because I think that it is the right thing to do in our democracy. I chair the all-party group on democratic participation, and I urge the Minister and the House to consider some of the recommendations that we have recently brought forward to improve the state of the registers. It is important that as many people as possible are registered to vote, and I commend the Minister’s calm approach to the situation this morning.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and she is right to say that there is no link between IER and last night’s registration difficulties on the website. I will study her recommendations with great interest, and I understand that she will soon meet the Minister responsible for constitutional affairs to discuss the matter.