Succession to the Crown Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

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

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

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Daniel Kawczynski]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

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

I commend the Bill to the House—

[Wayne David]

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

Succession to the Crown Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Wayne David]

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Mr MacNeil]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Sir Alan Beith]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

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

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Ian Paisley]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

Amendment agreed to.

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

[Mark Reckless]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Christopher Pincher]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mr Andrew Turner]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Christopher Pincher]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Mark Reckless]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Commencement and short title

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

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

[Wayne David]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

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

Is the Minister giving way?

[Miss Smith]

I would rather the Question be put.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Electoral Registration

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

[Siobhain McDonagh]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Ruane]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Ruane]

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

[Miss Smith]

In short, no.

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

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

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

[Sheila Gilmore]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Wayne David]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Ruane]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mr Andrew Smith]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Jim Dobbin]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mr McKenzie]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Jessica Morden]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

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

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

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

Charities (Donations)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) for a thoughtful, wide-ranging speech, and I welcome the additional comments provided by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). I venture to guess that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) was going to mention his valuable work on introducing the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which I congratulate him on as well.

I turn to the comments made and the issues raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West in the debate today. I agree that charities play an important role in our society, and I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the charitable organisations in this country that work so hard, and to those who work in them. They will be glad to see us taking these issues seriously in the House, and I know that there is much more that we must do.

I start with a general point that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of. Matters pertaining to donations to charities in Scotland are, of course, devolved matters. He is nodding, and he will know as well as I do that it is for the Scottish Government to comment on those matters. Perhaps they have a clear idea of what they wish to do in the long term in Scotland about such things, but he and I can take that into a different debate any time that he wishes.

I turn to the broad issue of current donations and the health of the sector, which was raised in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and in reports a short while ago. Much has been said about the health of the sector generally, and I add that the picture is very mixed. Clear trends are not easy to discern at this stage. The evidence of recent reports from the Charities Aid Foundation suggests that charitable donations are down, while other evidence, such as the Taking Part survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, finds that there is a slight increase in the proportion of people giving to charity. Similarly, the overall effect on the health of the charitable sector is unclear.

There are, however, grounds for optimism. Some reports suggest that the total income of registered charities has grown from £52 billion in 2009 to almost £59 billion now and that there are 2,000 more registered charities now than in 2009. Those figures are to be welcomed and cast an interesting light on the debate that we are having here today. What appears clear is that no one can say for certain whether donations are decreasing and certainly not at what rate. There is some debate in the sector about whether a decrease is what charities are experiencing on the ground.

We will need to wait and see if there is a clear trend in donations, but regardless of what trends emerge, it is also true that life goes on. We need to acknowledge that it is a challenging environment for charities and, clearly, for the people they serve. We should all make every effort to help the sector to raise money efficiently and effectively to meet the challenges, and that is exactly what we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will go on to deal with a couple of ways in which the Government are seeking to play their part.

The hon. Gentleman referred to face-to-face fundraising, often referred to as chugging. That is certainly seen regularly in Norwich. Indeed, only recently I was corresponding with a constituent on exactly that matter. It is an important and successful method of fundraising, which can bring millions of pounds into the charitable sector every year, but I welcome the announcement in November by the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association and the Local Government Association of an agreed template for voluntary site management agreements as a way for local authorities to control chugging in their areas. I think that more than 50 site agreements are in place, with more being negotiated.

Much more is being done by this Government to support the sector, including by supporting a culture of giving both money and time—an important area of debate—by opening up new sources of income and finance through social investment or delivering public services where organisations decide that that is right for them and by providing wider support for the sector, thereby making it easier to set up and run a charity or social enterprise. All those actions support the health of the sector, either through increasing access to income of various kinds or through reducing costs and burdens, so that that income goes further.

The debate has focused on charitable donations, and perhaps the biggest help that the Government give to the sector is gift aid, which the hon. Gentleman went through in some detail. He will know that it is a matter for the Treasury. Although I used to be that Minister, I would not dream of going on to such territory here today, but he did mention his pride in chairing the debates in Committee on the gift aid small donations scheme, and I was the Minister responsible for much of the work on that and was deeply proud to be so, because it is a very good avenue of further help—up to £100 million a year, we hope—for the sector. I shall say more on that in a second.

I want first to deal with the administration of gift aid and ways in which traditional gift aid can be made better for the sector. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn statement that an examination would be carried out to identify ways to improve the administration of gift aid to reflect new ways of giving money to charity and, in particular, digital giving, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[John Robertson]

I accept what the Minister is saying. I have no doubt that she is right and I think that gift aid is a good idea. The problem is that the small and medium-sized charities seem to be suffering the most, and they do not seem to have the access to gift aid that the larger charities have.

[Miss Smith]

I shall be very happy to answer that, but first I shall take the other intervention.

[Richard Fuller]

On a similar note to what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson), rather than looking to reform gift aid, would my hon. Friend the Minister consider scrapping gift aid entirely and putting in place a system whereby people can make direct deductions from their taxation? If we want to create a culture of giving, nothing is better than letting people write a cheque to a charity. That is one way in which smaller charities would benefit, rather than having to go through the more cumbersome process of gift aid.

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point, and I am always very interested to hear his ideas, some of which I have time to debate at length with him in this Chamber. I shall ensure that that idea goes where it can be well considered.

In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, the instigator of the debate, I think that the most important way to help smaller charities is to reduce the costs and burdens associated with what the state can provide to charities. That includes what we did in Budget 2011, which made it clear that we intend to make it easier for charities to claim gift aid by introducing a new IT system that will allow charities to claim gift aid online and through, as I mentioned, the gift aid small donations scheme, which will allow charities of all shapes and sizes—we hope that it will be of particular benefit to small local charities—to claim top-up payments equivalent to gift aid on small cash donations of up to £5,000 a year, without the need to have gift aid declarations from donors. That scheme should commence in April of this year, and as I mentioned, it is expected that it will increase the amounts received by charities by about £100 million a year. It is my sincere hope that it will be put to very good use by smaller charities as well as others.

[Jim Sheridan]

Can the Minister confirm whether the figure of £750 million is correct and, if it is correct, how small charities in particular access it?

[Miss Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall have to write to him on the figures because I did not catch the one that he was referring to. I will ensure that he gets the correct Minister’s response to the figure given. He does give me the opportunity to answer a question that was posed earlier: what happens to unclaimed gift aid? I think that both he and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West mentioned a £750 million figure in that regard. If they will forgive me for making a particularly political point at this stage, it is important to note that there is no such thing as a Treasury coffer that just sits there. There is no such thing as the Chancellor wishing to stockpile. There is every such thing as public spending, and if money that is within the public finances is not spent on one thing, it is spent on another. That is a very important point to note. I could also note plenty of other things that past Governments failed to do with public spending, such as control it properly, but I think that what is most helpful in this debate is to come back to the reasons why gift aid may be unclaimed. I want to return to that because I think that it is the constructive area for us to debate. We need to ensure that everyone who has a reasonable business claiming gift aid can do so easily, without costs and burdens.

I want to go on to payroll giving. The Cabinet Office, the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will come together to produce a joint consultation document on payroll giving in due course. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Glasgow North West on some of his points. We are further supporting giving at the top end by ensuring that people who donate at least 10% of their estate to charity will be eligible for a reduction in their inheritance tax bill from 40% to 36%. That is an incentive to help giving as well.

The hon. Gentleman suggested a number of other ideas to increase giving, and I am grateful for them. We will look at many of them; we will constantly look at this issue. We are making £10 million available to the Innovation in Giving fund. Many of the schemes use technology to further their aims. That fund will be delivered by NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. In England only, I should note, the fund will find and support the growth of the most promising ideas with potential to create a step change in giving. That is something that we can all welcome.

In addition, the Institute of Fundraising, which is one of Government’s strategic partners, provides training and guidance to small organisations on fundraising issues. We are also doing much to support the giving of time and wider community action, such as through the National Citizen Service, which gives young people the chance to do voluntary activities, meet new people and put something back into their communities. We are supporting Join In, to encourage people to volunteer and get involved in local sports clubs.

We are also supporting the sector to find other forms of income. We launched Big Society Capital with up to £600 million. That is the world’s first social investment institution. We have provided support with a wider package of social investment measures. In addition, the Cabinet Office recently published guidance entitled “Making it easier for civil society to work with the state”, which brings together the range of reforms across the Government and the wider public sector. That is aimed at making it easier to set up and run a charity. Part of that is that charities and social enterprises should be able to shape and deliver public services.

We are doing much to support charities to work better, including finding sources of income, through the £30 million Transforming Local Infrastructure fund, to help 74 local support organisations to improve their performance in supporting front-line organisations locally. We have looked at the bureaucracy that frustrates charities and adds to their costs and expenses. We are making good progress in implementing the recommendations on red tape that Lord Hodgson made in 2011 and are undertaking a red tape challenge for the civil society sector.

I should like to make one brief point on the international aspect, which the hon. Gentleman’s comments very interestingly turned to. I am sure that he would welcome, in both the coalition agreement early on and yesterday’s mid-term review, the reinforcement of this country’s aim to give 0.7% of our GDP to development aid. That is an important way to fulfil the aspiration that his speech articulated, and we should not forget it.

The Government recognise that charities face a challenging time in the current economic conditions. We will continue to work with the sector to help them.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the implementation of the Government’s procurement reforms.

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

As a result of this Government’s procurement reforms, we have made the way we do business more competitive, more transparent, better value and far simpler than ever before.

[Nick Smith]

Procurement reform is essential from the Government who brought us aircraft carriers without any aircraft and German trains. Last February the Prime Minister pledged that small and medium-sized enterprises would get 25% of Government contracts. What proportion of contracts is currently awarded to SMEs?

[Miss Smith]

The short answer is: a lot more than under the Government of the hon. Gentleman’s party. Direct spend on SMEs across Government continues to increase quarter by quarter, and we are planning, Department by Department, to reach that 25% target, and in doing so achieve far more than he and the last Labour Government ever did.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer, but may I suggest that at the top of the list of items for renegotiation with the EU—or near the top—should be a reversal of the previous Government’s absurd decision to extend European procurement rules to a large part of our defence programme?

[Miss Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. The Government agree that EU procurement rules must be fundamentally reformed, and we are making strong progress on that. I am delighted to say that most of the UK’s specific requests in this year of negotiations have been included in the latest work and that that work continues.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

3. What plans he has to promote volunteering opportunities for recently retired people to work with young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

5. What his policy is on streamlining the procurement process to enable more small and medium-sized enterprises to secure Government contracts.

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

It is this Government’s policy to dismantle the barriers facing small companies, charities and voluntary organisations to ensure they can compete for contracts on a level playing field. This helps to deliver economic growth through public procurement. As I have mentioned before, it is an ongoing process to reach our aspiration in this Parliament of 25% of central Government procurement spend being with SMEs.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. If bad practice continues, will she explain how my constituent SMEs can complain, and will her office undertake to ensure that investigation follows if bad practice exists?

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the need for organisations to make complaints about poor procurement practice. That is why we have provided a right to challenge such practice through the mystery shopper service and I confirm that today we are publishing the next batch of its results, which I think my hon. Friend will find very interesting indeed, and we shall continue doing so.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Federation of Small Businesses told me yesterday that most of its members had given up trying to do business with Departments. According to the Government’s figures, public sector procurement from small businesses has fallen in most Departments since the election. Why has that happened?

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is rather mixed up. As I mentioned in my answer, spend with SMEs is rising and we are on track for that 25% target. I am also conscious that the chairman of the FSB said this year that

“central government has raised its game…But more must be done”.

The question is: why did the previous Government do so little?

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

ONE3ONE Solutions, a recent start-up, is the commercial arm of prison industries. In the interests of us all, the business needs to grow to get prisoners working effectively. What progress is the Minister making to put the organisation on the preferred supplier list for Government contracts, for which it has suitable products and services?

[Miss Smith]

As Members would expect, our prime objective in procurement is value for money for the taxpayer, but I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend articulates and I will be happy to discuss it further with him and appropriate colleagues.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to support smaller charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made on the Government’s cyber-security strategy and establishing a centre for global cyber-security capacity building.

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

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently informed the House, we have made real progress on improving the UK’s cyber-security capability.

In October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced plans to establish a new global cyber-security capacity building centre. We expect to make a further announcement on that next year.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Lancaster university is a centre for excellence on cyber-security in the excellent county of Lancashire, which of course she is very welcome to visit. I wonder whether she recently saw a report that the university produced on the impact of cybercrime on small businesses; does she agree that that issue is no longer just for Government and big business, but now concerns every business?

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reminder. I am aware of the excellent work that Lancaster does. I will gladly look into an opportunity to visit. I fully agree that cyber-security is an issue that affects everybody in society—businesses large and small. We are increasing our work with small and medium-sized enterprises to raise awareness of cyber-threats and what we can all do to protect ourselves.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Nelson)]

The hon. Lady is right that cyber-security affects everyone in society. Will she therefore put her support behind the annual PICTFOR—the Parliamentary Internet Communications Technology Forum—competition, “Make it Happy”, which is targeted at primary schools and in 2013 will be focused on cyber-security, building on the forthcoming programme for secondary schools?

[Miss Smith]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s scheme, and I welcome PICTFOR’s support. I look forward to working with him on the scheme because it is important that we get that message out, even to children at a young age, and I am sure that we can all have a happy new year with that scheme.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the merits of establishing an independent body to investigate complaints against charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T2. May I encourage Ministers to work across parties to achieve a strong and robust register of lobbyists, rather than proceed with the proposal which the chair of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has described as so weak that it is not worth joining?

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

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are continuing to analyse the responses received from the consultation on that matter.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T4. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has already raised the plight of the Plymouth Brethren, who are subject to a disgraceful attack by the Charity Commission on their charitable status. During the passage of the Charities Act 2011 through the House, the current Leader of the Opposition gave undertakings that no religious body would lose its charitable status. If the Plymouth Brethren lose the litigation, will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the law will be changed?

Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this debate and for her considered remarks. I also thank other colleagues for their contributions.

It falls to me to respond to some of the questions that she raised, and I am happy to do so. I start by noting what has already been noted: Parliament has taken no fixed view over time on the question whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. Many Members hold diverging views on both ends of the spectrum, often passionately. It is fair to say that those differences reflect a divergence of opinion in wider society; I simply do not think that there is an open-and-shut case for us to discuss.

I shall tackle head-on the comments about my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He has made clear on several occasions his personal view that he would like votes at 16, and that is the view of his party. His views are shared by many not only in his party but across the House. For my own part and that of the Conservative party, I happen to disagree. I have yet to be convinced by the evidence available, although I look forward to drawing it out somewhat in the few minutes available to me. I am far from alone in suggesting that position. The most recent research that I am aware of, which I shall come to in a second, backs that up in that it shows that people remain to be convinced of the merits of the case.

On the points made by Members, the Votes at 16 coalition circulated a briefing to all hon. Members before this debate that clearly set out a range of arguments in favour of lowering the voting age to 16: 16-year-olds can leave school, get a job and pay tax on their earnings, marry and join the armed forces. The last point gives me cause to dwell on the list for a second. It can be done only with parental consent, and Ministry of Defence policy is that no one under 18 will take part in combat. The situation is by no means as straightforward as a simple reading out of the list of ages would suggest.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister explain the Government’s thinking? If they accept that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in the referendum on Scottish independence, why can 16 and 17-year-olds not vote in elections more generally? What is the difference?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is as mischievous as ever. He knows very well that, in the case that he has just cited, it is the desire of the Scottish Government that that should be the franchise for the referendum. The Government of whom I am a part are led by the Prime Minister, who signed an agreement with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Scotland that we shall enable a referendum to take place for Scotland. That is quite a different thing, and it remains UK Government policy that the franchise should be for those 18 years old and over.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not feel that there might be some dangers in conceding as the Government have done in Scotland—in a way that might not be as well controlled as if the Electoral Commission had had full control—rather than doing so properly for the country as a whole? That would have been the right way to proceed.

[Miss Smith]

The UK Government’s view is that many things would be better if we were to stay together as a United Kingdom. That might be one of the many questions that should be raised in the next two years of the campaign. However, the hon. Lady raises a wise point in the context of the debate. The Scottish Government have sought that franchise and Westminster has agreed a memorandum of understanding enabling them to do so, but there is no consensus within the UK Government on the age of franchise overall.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central rightly spoke of the many things that society seeks to enable 16-year-olds to do, but I wish to balance that by noting the many things that society and Parliament do not believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should yet be able to do. They include smoking, buying alcohol, placing a bet, standing for election and serving on a jury. The fact is that there is no standard age of majority in the United Kingdom and no single point at which one moves from being a child to being an adult. That may be a matter for debate in itself, but it is right to note that the rights and responsibilities that we accord young people in society build over time. There is no single on-off switch.

I am familiar with the argument, repeated in the Votes at 16 coalition briefing, that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote would help engage young people in our democracy and political processes at an earlier age. I should like to mention some of the evidence available. I remain unconvinced that we might achieve that worthy aim by this method. I am all for young people taking part in politics—I hope that any hon. Member who observed the age at which I entered the House appreciates that—but we have to do lots of things to achieve more young people being involved in politics; it is not only a matter of the voting age.

Let me turn to a couple of points of evidence. First, the Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up, looked at ways to develop young people’s understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics. As part of that, it considered whether the voting age should be lowered to 16. It reported in summer 2009 and felt unable to make a recommendation on whether the voting age should be lowered. It suggested that there was a lack of evidence available regarding the merits of votes at 16 and noted that there were, as I have already said, vigorous and strongly held views on either side of the debate. The YCC’s view was that the voting age is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.

Many wise points are made in the YCC report, but it did not find significant evidence on which to base a recommendation. I am sure that all hon. Members agree about what it set out to consider: civic awareness, understanding, maturity of judgment, the place of citizenship education, the impact on turnout and responsible voting, the impact on young people’s perceptions and civic activity and the administrative issues that would go with such a change, all of which are valuable elements in that research and in the debate that we ought to have if we had longer than half an hour. The YCC found that

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

Where else might we turn for evidence? I am also interested in a YouGov poll released in November 2009, shortly after the YCC report, done for the Citizenship Foundation, which I am sure all hon. Members have worked with in their time as parliamentarians. It does much good work. The poll looked at 14 to 25-year-olds. The point that I want to draw out of it is that, although it might be expected that 16-year-olds would say, “Yes, please. I am interested in majority and the vote,” as per the figures that the hon. Lady used, in that category of 14 to 25-year-olds—some on either side of the grouping—54% are against, 31% are for and 15% do not know. Those figures should provoke enough thought to cause us to stop and consider not only the range of views, but the high number of those who do not know, which is a matter that we might discuss.

The hon. Lady mentioned turnout, as did the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We all want higher turnout and greater participation in the electoral process, but a relevant fact here is that, since the 1997 election, turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, who can vote, has fallen from 51% to 44%. Registration among young people is lower than for other population groups. Far be it from me to rest this debate on a point of mathematics—no doubt, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) will realise this—but if participation followed what we see already in that most youthful age bracket, turnout overall would fall, and that would not be the outcome that we were focusing on. That is a dry maths point, but the broader point is there and can be brought to life for people. We do not want lower turnout. We want turnout to be higher. Is lowering the voting age the tool to achieve that? I am yet to be convinced of that, but this debate does good work in addressing the matter.

An issue of engagement goes far beyond the franchise. We in the Government are trying to deal with that among some of the other activities that we are running. For example, in the pilots of the Bite the Ballot programme, we are talking to young people in schools and colleges— I was with a group in Norwich doing that in the past few weeks—about the importance of registering to vote. That is in the context of individual electoral registration. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has not yet mentioned that this afternoon, but I should be delighted to take it up whenever he wishes. All hon. Members agree that it is important that the individual right and responsibility to register and to vote should be treated carefully and wisely.

[Wayne David]

The Minister has provoked me. She mentions consultation with Bite the Ballot, for example. Surely she will have picked up that that organisation, like all the others that she has engaged with regarding individual electoral registration, supports votes at 16. Have they not persuaded her yet?

[Miss Smith]

I am afraid that they have not. I look forward to hearing a conclusive argument, if there is one, that takes the majority of society with it. I must return to the point that we in Parliament seek to represent our constituents. I could not honestly say that a majority of my constituents would want me to support votes at 16. I do not think that that is so. There is wide spread of views throughout society. Some of the stats that I have mentioned back that up and give us food for thought. There is no single magic bullet for increasing youth engagement in politics. The franchise is but one factor, as the Youth Citizenship Commission shows.

[Wayne David]

For me, the bottom line is that, if a young person aged 16 can give full consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter work or training, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right, consent to sexual relationships, get married or enter a civil partnership, change their name by deed poll—

[Wayne David]

I am just coming to the end. They may also join the armed forces and become a company director. Surely, if all those things apply, logically, why should voting be exempt?

[Miss Smith]

Mr Chope, if I had more time than you might allow me, the direct answer would be that that is because the following things do not apply when a person is 16: holding a licence to drive any vehicle, except certain heavy ones, engaging in street trading, holding an air rifle, etc. I do not wish simply to read out the other half of the list. The point is that, as I have said, a range of activities signal majority from 16 through to 18. Indeed, there are eight of them, on certain counts.

[Nic Dakin]

I compliment the Minister on her engaging contribution to the debate. However, I have not heard any reason for not giving the vote at 16. I hope that she welcomes an ongoing debate about this, so that we can take it forward together.

[Miss Smith]

I welcome that debate and welcome everything that has gone into this debate. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central on securing the debate. I welcome the interest that is regularly shown in this debate by those whom we seek to represent and work with. I welcome that not only as a younger person in politics, but as a person who seeks to have other young people involved in politics, as I seek to take the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages. It is vital that registration and turnout increase in this country. We all seek to achieve that.

I cannot give the hon. Member for Caerphilly an emphatic yes, a tick in the box or franchise on a plate, because I do not think that there is consensus in the country for it. That is not reflected in what our constituents ask us to do. There are divergent views. Accordingly, there is no consensus within the Government on this issue. I shall not hide that fact. It was not included in the coalition agreement for Government, so there are no plans for a change in this Parliament.

I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive suggestions about citizenship education, which I will be sure to pass on to my colleagues in the relevant Departments. I look forward very much to continuing this debate and to all of us doing everything that we can to encourage young people to play the fullest possible part in civic and democratic life.

2011 Referendums

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Written Statements

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

Today we are publishing The UK Government’s response to reports on the 2011 referendums. It includes responses to the Electoral Commission’s report on “Referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections: Report on the May 2011 referendum”. The response also includes comments on recommendations made by the Association of Electoral Administrators’ report “Administration of the referendums and elections across the UK in 2011”.

The Government have already brought forward legislation as part of their programme of constitutional reform which should assist the effective administration of future elections and referendums. We were grateful for the analysis and recommendations within the reports.

Copies of the Government’s response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Tackling Corruption

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for this important debate and for rightly celebrating international anti-corruption day, which fell on Sunday. We might be somewhat belated, but we are ensuring that we mark it in Parliament today.

Some interesting points have been made, which I will endeavour to answer as best I can. I will provide an update on the Government’s efforts to tackle international corruption, which, as the hon. Lady rightly said, have to go across Departments. I am sure that such efforts come with the strong good wishes of all parties. I also welcome the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). He has not made a full speech today, but he is well known to the House as the co-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption. He and the hon. Lady ought to be congratulated on their work on that agenda.

I will mirror many of the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon, and I lay out the reassurance that the Government are committed to tackling corruption at home and abroad. Corruption is a scourge that hurts individuals, businesses and social and economic development. Such injustice invariably hits the most vulnerable citizens the hardest, throughout the world, and it has a corrosive impact. Corruption can have a badly corroding effect not only on society, the rule of law and democracy but on the reputation of and trust in the state in general terms. In particular, if we look at people’s views of the ease and cost of doing business, the effect can be seen clearly in many places around the world.

The British Government’s view is that strong action to address corruption will help to move the vast resources involved to more productive ends. Instead of people’s resources being squandered to enable organised crime or to undermine the rule of law and those bonds of trust to which I referred, we seek for them to be used to support trade, commerce and growth.

The UK has played a leading role in the international fight against corruption, and I wish to make a few points about that today. I also take the opportunity to welcome the correspondence that hon. Members have had with the Prime Minister on the role of the anti-corruption champion. Indeed, I have a copy of that correspondence with me.

I am delighted to have the full support of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), as I address the issue today. I shall ensure that he hears the results of the debate, and I shall convey to him the points made by hon. Members in their desire for clarity on the breadth of his role and on his next steps.

I turn to what the UK is doing on the international stage. Over the past 20 years or so, there has clearly been progressive globalisation—not only of business but, crucially, of corruption. We must therefore internationalise the fight against corruption. The UK has taken part in the need for broader and more sophisticated legislation and co-ordination. The Bribery Act 2010 represents what many consider to be the most comprehensive anti-corruption legislation in the world, as I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North recognised. The Act clamps down on foreign as well as domestic bribery and addresses passive as well as active corruption. It acknowledges the international and multifaceted nature of the challenge, and I hope and believe that it will provide a template to many other legislatures around the world.

Some UK businesses might have been concerned when the 2010 Act came in so, as an aside, I reassure them that a legal system that provides a good reason not to pay bribes saves businesses money and protects their reputations. They could also point out any corruption with hope of redress if their competitors were not acting as honestly. Far from driving firms away, the Act ought to attract and to deliver something of an ethical premium in respect of doing business.

The UK has played a prominent role in co-ordinating international efforts. The hon. Lady mentioned the G20 anti-corruption working group, which the UK has co-chaired with Mexico and which has made progress on asset disclosure, mutual legal assistance and the denial of entry to corrupt public officials. The success of the group has been such that we have seen the bringing together of global expertise from civil society and, crucially, businesses.

[Anas Sarwar]

I agree with all the Minister’s comments so far, but can we tease out the details on what specific action the UK Government have taken, internationally or domestically, to clamp down on corruption?

[Miss Smith]

Without a doubt. I will carry right on and do exactly that, and I am happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman has further information if I do not manage to cover everything in the time available.

The UK is the lead chair of the Open Government Partnership, an international initiative that has attracted 57 other countries since its launch, which is an accolade to the UK’s lead chairmanship. It allows us to help countries to build transparent governance structures which, because the battle is international, help the UK as well, demonstrating that transparency is a central plank of any effort.

The UK fully recognises the importance of the longer-term agenda, and Ban Ki-moon spoke about the millennium development goals on Sunday. That is another important point to note in the record. There is

“a golden thread of development”

and we intend that to be a central tenet of our G8 presidency in 2013. The UK intends to champion an agenda of transparency and accountability by changing the nature of the debate on development and aid. The power of open economies, open Governments and open societies can deliver that growth and prosperity that we seek and, crucially, the bonds of trust.

The hon. Lady asked about the extractive industries. The UK is leading efforts in the UK to require oil, gas and mining companies to publish key financial information for each country and project that they work on. In many ways, the UK’s work on transparency paves the way for the G8, and this is my point in answer to the hon. Gentleman.

The Department for International Development has made great strides over the last couple of years, as hon. Members recognise. We are publishing data according to the international aid transparency initiative. Through those efforts we have been able to move in one year from fifth to first place in the Publish What You Fund aid transparency index. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, and I know that both hon. Members will welcome the fact that the traceability of aid benefits those for whom the aid is intended. We all agree on that, and our constituents throughout the country want transparency of Governments and a reduction in waste, fraud, and corruption in the country’s aid budget.

[Anas Sarwar]

We want transparency in how aid is delivered, but one frustration for our constituents is that although they may believe in aid, they see corruption by Government officials coming the other way. We must reform our institutions here to ensure that we do not aid and abet corruption in other countries.

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a wise point. If he will forgive me, I will allow a Minister from the Department for International Development to respond in more detail than I can today.

Let me turn to what we are doing on enforcement and what we are doing in the UK, because both are vital. We are playing a key role in the tracing, seizing, recovering and return of illicit assets. That is important, and in September the Prime Minister launched a taskforce to work with the Egyptian Government to gather evidence on stolen money, for example. That builds on the work of two police units that DFID has funded in that arena.

Effective enforcement is central and essential in the trustworthiness of the whole process. Laws mean very little if they are not enforced by every official who might come into contact with the process. The UK targets foreign and corrupt officials who launder the proceeds of corruption and bribery through our country, and I will give an example. James Ibori, the former Governor of Delta state in Nigeria, became one of its richest men by embezzlement. Following a British police investigation, he was sentenced to 13 years in jail, which sends a clear message to those who might seek to use the UK as a refuge for criminal acts.

In addition, the UK operates a comprehensive anti-money laundering framework which, in accordance with the revised international standards of the Financial Action Task Force, helps us to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister clarify that the action that she is outlining and has given examples of is pursued under the Bribery Act 2010 and through the Serious Fraud Office? If so, will she clarify the SFO’s funding situation, and whether it has sufficient resources properly to tackle corruption on an international scale, an example of which she has given?

[Miss Smith]

I am conscious that the hon. Lady asked that question earlier, and perhaps I can return to it. I have just mentioned one case, and I can furnish plenty more than what I have been able to give on my feet this afternoon. She will appreciate from her role on the Front Bench that it will be hard for me to pre-empt future spending decisions, but we are putting a serious focus on the new UK National Crime Agency, which I am about to come on to. I hope that she will find reassurance in that.

As well as telling other countries to put their houses in order, the UK must put its house in order. We should not be complacent. According to Transparency International’s work, we are perceived to be less vulnerable to corruption than some of our friends, such as the US, France and Ireland, but we remain behind other counterparts with whom we might seek to compete. We have subjected and continue to subject our domestic systems to peer review by the OECD, the UN convention against corruption and the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption experts.

We are already working across Departments and law enforcement and prosecution agencies to see how we can make it easier for UK residents and businesses to identify, prevent and report bribery and corruption. We need to improve the intelligence picture through a more joined-up and co-ordinated approach that gives us a clearer picture of the true nature and scale of domestic bribery and corruption. We can then use that to support a stronger law enforcement response.

From next year, the new UK National Crime Agency will have a part to play, and while the details are being developed, it will seek to reduce the threat from corruption and bribery within the UK and internationally.

[Anas Sarwar]

The Minister is being generous in giving way, and I thank her for that. What role will institutions play as part of that framework? Clearly, our banks, whether consciously or subconsciously, are being used to funnel corrupt money through our institutions. Will they play a role in that framework?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I see the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If he will allow me, I will ensure that in due course he receives a fuller answer than I can give him in the three minutes remaining.

I want to add to some points about what has just been announced in the autumn statement. The Government have reinvested more than £900 million in HMRC to tackle evasion, unpaid tax debts and avoidance. That allocation of extra resources to HMRC during this spending review period will add a real element to what we have discussed today. Our serious compliance activity shows that the Government are committed to clamping down on tax avoidance wherever it is identified, and that is an important plank in what we are talking about in the most general terms and in preventing corruption.

The autumn statement announced the closure with immediate effect of some newly identified loopholes that were being exploited, and that will protect hundreds of millions of pounds for the UK. It also announced the introduction of the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule, which provides a significant new deterrent to abusive avoidance schemes and strengthens HMRC’s means of tackling them wherever they persist. Finally, we are cracking down on the marketing of tax avoidance schemes through proposals to introduce new information disclosure measures.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister is aware that very little time is left for this debate. Apart from the measures that she has just outlined on activities at HMRC, she has not told us whether there is a cross-departmental anti-corruption strategy, or whether one is likely to be published. That would be useful information to have before we run out of time in this debate.

[Miss Smith]

I endeavoured to address that in my opening words. As the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio is delighted to continue to be the anti-corruption champion; there has been no change in that respect following the ministerial reshuffle in September. It is with his full support that I am here today answering the hon. Lady’s questions.

It has been difficult to give a full overview of everything the Government are doing, but that is what I have endeavoured to do in this debate. I will convey to my right hon. and learned Friend her desire for a fuller response. I am sure that the all-party group’s work, which is supported across parties, will be well recognised, and I am sure that its desire for that strategy can be discussed in greater detail at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I support the amendment and welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I want to raise a point that I do not think is covered by the Bill but which is associated with the thought: whether someone who has or has had a mental health condition and who feels that they would not be capable of serving as a juror at a particular time can say so and whether that would be accepted by the court. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) might not be able to answer straight away, but I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know later, perhaps in writing.

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

I support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). It is of a minor and technical nature and it builds on the amendments to the Juries Act 1974 under clause 2 of the Bill. The Government are happy to accept the amendment, which, although it is technical and does not affect the substance of the Bill, is very important in terms of presentation because through its inclusion the Bill will more fully reflect the intention that we all share in this House of removing legislative provisions that prevent people from participating fully in society merely because they have a mental health condition.

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that there are indeed measures that would still allow a person called for jury service to indicate that they felt unable to carry it out. I shall be happy to provide any further information that he requires on that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, I am happy to support his amendment. I hope that he will not be embarrassed but I congratulate him on the expert way in which he described the technical effects of the amendment so clearly. Given his ability to do so, I think it is only a matter of time before he is summoned to the Front Bench. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) clearly explained his rationale for supporting the amendment.

As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has two purposes. In certain clearly defined areas, it seeks to remove legislative provisions that prevent people from contributing to various aspects of our public life, but its wider aim is to challenge the stigma that people with mental health conditions experience in our society and to send a wider message beyond this House to society as whole. It is therefore absolutely essential to get the language right. That is why I support the amendment.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the provision that he has in mind does exist. Anyone summoned for jury service is entitled to request an excusal or deferral by completing the relevant section of the summons form. Such applications are then considered by officers of the Jury Central Summoning Bureau.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is happy for me to attempt to answer a few of the points on the detail, which were raised mainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I shall do so, and further indicate the Government’s support for the Bill.

On clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley queried whether the House should seek to amend measures that have never been used when we could simply let them wither on the vine. It is my firm view and that of other hon. Members that we ought to tackle discriminatory and stigmatic anachronisms when we come across them. We are proud that the Bill does that.

My hon. Friend asked how constituents can be represented by an MP who comes under the provisions of the Bill. When Members suffer from a physical health problem, informal arrangements are made and support is given to them by the House and their party. The Government believe that similar arrangements should apply in cases of mental illness. He asked about eligibility to vote, and I will be happy to come back to him on that another time.

My hon. Friend asked whether there should be a post-detention time limit with regard to jury service. I can confirm that when somebody is no longer detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, they should no longer be subject to constraints. After all, they will have been assessed and deemed not to be suffering to an extent that prevents them from leading a normal life. It is possible to see the Bill in that light.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the provision on directorships. I can confirm that the provision applies only to companies—whether existing or new—that use model articles.

I hope that that covers my hon. Friend’s questions. It falls to me to add once again the Government’s support for the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central on promoting the Bill to this conclusion. He has done an excellent job in gaining such overwhelming support for it. I, too, am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in debates on the Bill, and to two hon. Members at least for their humbling openness.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for playing his part in making the amendment today. I can confirm that the reforms in the Bill are, in totality, an essential part of the Government’s drive to tackle the stigma and discrimination still associated with mental health. It is my hope that the work hon. Members have done on the Bill today and in other debates will encourage more sympathetic treatment, not only in law, but in the mainstream media and other places. The Bill represents a simple but fundamental change in removing discrimination against those who suffer from mental health disorders so that they can participate in public life in a number of key ways, and I commend it to the House.