European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Durkan

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which I think is the point she was making earlier. I do not dispute the special quality of referendums which gets people excited. That is a good thing, and I am delighted that we are having a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. It is one of the things I was proud of in the Conservative party manifesto. It allows us to engage people of any age in an important question for our country. However, the referendum is not the vehicle for us to attempt to change the full franchise. I shall come on to that as my main argument.

When I was in the position now held by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is one of the Ministers present today, I stood at the Dispatch Box and demurred on the question whether we should change the age of the franchise. I referred to mixed evidence and said at that time that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, I was not convinced that we ought to alter the age of enfranchisement in this country. I have since changed my view and come to believe that we should have votes at 16. I have come to that view for a number of reasons: additional evidence has come in from the Scottish referendum and it is such an important signal to send to young people to welcome them into our democracy. As I have argued, it is no silver bullet, but it is a very important signal to give.

I endorse the work of the Tory Reform Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) have contributed to that and I have collaborated with them. There is an important argument to be made from the Conservative Benches in favour of enfranchising young people and engaging them in our politics. Let me make that Conservative argument briefly. The youngest generation in our adult world today is least interested in big redistributive schemes. Of the generations in our democracy today, it is most interested in welfare reform and in enterprise. We have an opportunity in our party to make the Conservatives the home for young voters, and we should grab that opportunity with both hands.

We have made a good start. We are the party that has just won a national election on the basis of an improving economy, jobs for young people and record youth employment figures, and on our record of fixing this country’s debts so that they do not fall on the heads of future generations, helping young families with childcare and putting education in this country on a stable footing that serves those young people for their future. We are the party of young people and we can be the party of young voters. However, the Bill is not the vehicle for extending the franchise. Let me explain why.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady seems to be making the case that 16 is not too young to vote, but the referendum would be too soon to make that change. Rather than the evidence being mixed, is she not giving us a very mixed argument?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman kindly brings me to my next point, which is the nature of making a change as important and as necessary as this through an ad hoc means. I am arguing for a lasting change for young people, not for an ad hoc change, as represented by making it on a one-time referendum. As good as referendums are, they are by their nature one-timers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

In that case, why has the franchise been extended in relation to peers? Now the only additional young voters we are going to get are four Lords called Young and one called Younger. The franchise is being altered specifically for them as a one-off. If it is okay to extend the franchise for them, why not for 16 and 17-year-olds?

[Chloe Smith]

My answer to that, as opposed to the Minister’s, which he will give to explain the full point, is that if we agree here, as many of us do on a cross-party basis, that we ought to look at ways to bring young people into our politics, we need to do that more permanently. I for one would not be happy to settle for doing so only on the ad hoc basis of a referendum. For that reason, and because I want to make sure that this is good-quality legislation, as I mentioned earlier, I will not vote for the amendments today because they would not do that properly.

I refer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has just left her place. She emphasised the need to make sure the electoral register is robust, so that we can have a robust jury service system. I refer also to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who says that we should do this properly as a view of the age of majority. Several important points are not adequately dealt with by swiftly enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds in an ad hoc manner.

Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Durkan

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well, and perhaps makes my next point for me, which is that the previous Government failed to deal with the problem of child care costs, and it is the present Government, in particular the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who are doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who is responsible for child care, has rightly said in the past that a changing economy means that parents need affordable and available child care more than ever, and a changing world means that children need a rigorous, rounded education more than ever. We have before us an opportunity to do both things at once. The context is the tax and benefit changes that came into being this financial year. The biggest reforms in a generation, they will create more jobs—indeed, they have already done so—and they are getting more people off welfare and into work. Child care follows from that, so let us see it in perspective. It is only by sticking to those kind of economic actions—a long-term economic plan, in fact—that we will build a more resilient economy and a more financially secure future for hard-working people and their families.

The cost of living cannot be seen in isolation. The British people cannot be flannelled with phony figures. There can be no economic or household security without the honesty and courage to control the public finances. Labour’s old way has failed—Labour Members would argue with that, if they were here to do so. More public spending led to more welfare bills and more government jobs that the country could not afford. They propose in this debate to use a levy they have already spent 10 times over. Why can they not afford parents the respect of some honesty? This Government, on the other hand, are backing businesses by cutting their taxes, so they can create jobs; cutting tax for individuals, so that their job pays; and controlling welfare, so that getting a job pays more. Universal credit is of course crucial and will be one of the most important reforms this Government make. By replacing working tax credit, it should help my female constituent who wrote to me last week to say:

“When I did work we were over the threshold for working tax credits by around £300 yet I would have to pay £12,000 in childcare cost to continue working.”

Let us look at some other current figures. I am drawing now on the Mumdex—the helpful piece of work that Asda does every month. The latest report shows a rise in spending power for the eighth consecutive month, leaving families £4 a month better off than last year. The main cause is a slowdown in essential item inflation, particularly food, clothes and mortgage interest payments—another sign of a sounder economy. Petrol costs fell again, which eased the pressure on household finances—indeed, under this Government, fuel duty is now more than 13p a litre lower than it would have been without our action, so that the average family saves £7 every time they fill up the tank.

Such results in family finances can only come about with control of the public finances, which has entailed serious decisions by the Government about what to spend hard-earned taxes on. Voters have serious decisions to make as well, as the Conservatives appreciate. As a previous Conservative election poster said,

“Don’t just hope for a better life. Vote for one.”

I am delighted that the Chancellor has put public money towards the tax-free child care scheme that we are discussing. It stands to ease costs for families even more, and here are five good reasons why I support it. First, it will be bigger and faster than first outlined, opening sooner and benefiting in its first year 1.9 million working families with children under 12. That is good progress already in the work that has to be done to bring the scheme forward. Secondly, it will be simple, flexible and easily accessible online. Thirdly, for the first time self-employed parents and those working for the great majority of employers who do not offer the existing employer-supported child care scheme will be able to take part.

Fourthly, the scheme will also help those working part time and on the minimum wage because of the low minimum earnings threshold of £50 a week. Fifthly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, it offers more help for parents of disabled children by recognising that assistance ought to continue until the child is aged 17, rather than 12. I know from experience in my constituency how welcome that will be.

This all means that all working families where the parents earn at least £50 a week will have access to Government support for child care costs unless one of the parents earns more than £150,000 or receives support from tax credits, universal credit or ESC. All told, this gives families greater stability and more flexibility to make their own choices about their family picture. A male constituent told me:

“I’m now on £10K a year, at 39 years of age. My wife, an amazing mother, has to stay at home to look after two of our children, as we cannot afford the child care or would be worse off if my wife went to work.”

The personal allowance will rise in April next year to £10,500. My constituent then may be one of the 400 people in Norwich North who will be taken out of tax entirely by the actions of this Government. He will certainly be one of the more than 38,000 people in my constituency who will benefit from our tax changes. Universal credit will address the abhorrent benefits trap, which is reflected in the quote that I just gave. My constituent and his wife may also benefit from the scheme before us today. I welcome the targeted provision of taxpayer-funded child care for families on the lowest incomes.

[Mark Durkan]

On universal credit, does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a disparity, in that child care support under universal credit will not be paid through the sort of child care accounts that are available under this scheme; they will be only for costs that are already paid out, unlike under this scheme.

[Chloe Smith]

I do recognise that difference, and I am confident that the Minister will look at that carefully. I wonder whether we might deal with it in Committee, and whether Labour Members will be there to do so, as they are absent from the Chamber today. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I do not have the answer, but I am confident that the Minister is working on it.

The new provision, however it is implemented, will be targeted. It is important to add it to the provision that this Government have extended for families on the lowest incomes, beginning with all three and four-year-olds receiving 15 hours a week of free child care, and going on to target this offer to the 240,000 poorest two-year-olds. If that is how the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) defines doing nothing in our years in power, I cannot wait, and I am quivering in my boots, to see what she will do when she marshals some Back Benchers to help her into government.

Let me turn to a couple of points about the quality of child care that we all wish to see as we put the Bill through. I want more great child care to be available and to offer parents more choice and flexibility. I would also like it to be easier for new providers to enter the market and for good existing providers to expand, with consequent benefits for affordability and quality. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, has said that we know that other countries, such as France and Germany, have excellent systems for comparable amounts of Government spending, while also paying staff good salaries and keeping parents’ costs affordable. I hope my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will reassure us that the implementation of the child care payments scheme will be simple and cost-effective, will work with other Government systems such as universal credit, and will give parents the confidence that they need and deserve in affordable, achievable, good quality child care in this country.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Durkan

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

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

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.