Election Law Reform

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Harper

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Harper]

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

[Mr Harper]

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

[Chloe Smith]

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

[Mr Harper]

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

[Chloe Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Harper]

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

[Chloe Smith]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

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

[Chloe Smith]

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

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

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Harper

Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Chloe Smith]

I confirm that I used the word “months” and I deliberately did so. I intend to be realistic with the Committee that those instruments are complex and need to be prepared fully and correctly. I wish to be quite straight about that with the Committee.

The more specific scheduling of a vote after that point is, of course, a matter for the Whips, which I am not in a position to confirm any more specifically today. I add something I think the hon. Member for City of Chester and other Committee members might already be aware of: the governing legislation says that the orders shall be laid “as soon as may be”. That is the technical guidance the hon. Gentleman is looking for in his question.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that last point. I referred to that in a previous sitting. Ministers cannot unduly delay matters but they clearly have to go through the proper process and ensure that the orders are correct.

I want to ask the Minister a question about what she said on process. In a previous sitting, I brought up the subject of where these issues are debated. There are two points I want her to reflect on: one is what the hon. Member for City of Chester said about whether the House should give us permission to debate the Bill before the House has taken a decision on the boundary reports. I do not think that is sensible because the debate on the order would need to be taken into account if there was a wish to change legislation.

The second point, to which I think the Minister referred, is that these matters affect all Members of Parliament. If we were to debate the substance of the Bill, it should not be done here in Committee. As with the original legislation, it should be debated on the Floor of House in a Committee of the whole House, so that every Member of Parliament had the opportunity to consider it. The Minister has set out a sensible way to proceed.

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s compelling points. The first, on time, is absolutely correct. I agree that there is little point in this Committee discussing matters that are also before the main Chamber before the main Chamber does so. Secondly, on scope, I also agree, as I said earlier, that it is correct for the main Chamber to look at these matters, first, because they affect all Members and, secondly, because they are constitutionally important. It is the convention of this House that such matters are dealt with in the main Chamber.

[Chloe Smith]

No doubt, Ms Dorries, if I did not say it, you would say that it is not for me to do that. It would be for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to have such a conversation.

Following your guidance, Ms Dorries, I shall refrain from commenting on the internal machinations of parties, though, if I did, no doubt questions about the unity of both the Labour party and the Scottish National party would become very clear, given what we have seen in the press over the summer—in the Daily Mail or elsewhere.

Notwithstanding that, I can confirm that the party chairman of the Conservative party has written to Conservative colleagues, as is entirely reasonable and expected, but I do not think it is appropriate to lay that correspondence in the Library, as requested by the hon. Member for City of Chester, because those are party documents. The very important documents that we are discussing are of course the boundary commission reports. I hope I have used my comments to lay out the process that the Government intend to use for those documents, which will be before us very shortly.

[Mr Harper]

Before the Minister sits down, may I press her on one matter that I hope will be helpful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton? Picking up the point that the hon. Member for City of Chester made, it would be sensible for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to consider talking to the Government about a motion to discuss the substance of the Bill on the Floor of the House. That could save us coming here every week to talk about a motion to adjourn.

However, having listened to my hon. Friend the Minister, I anticipate the Government’s response to be—I am only a Back Bencher, so I do not know—that that makes sense, but that it does not make sense for that process to start before the House has had the opportunity to consider the Order in Council. As I have said before, if we are to debate the substance of the Bill, and therefore amend the current process laid down in law, we should want to do so after listening to Members’ concerns about the existing process. To start changing the law about the process before even allowing one process to conclude under the existing legislation is to put the cart before the horse.

To avoid our having an interesting but slightly null debate every week on whether to adjourn, it may be sensible for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to have that conversation. I anticipate that the Government would perhaps agree to that, but to have the process start once the House has had the opportunity to consider the boundary commissions’ proposals. That might be a constructive and sensible way forward. The Minister will no doubt reflect on my contributions and those of the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman may well also reflect on them with purpose.

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend is as forensic, logical and authoritative as ever, and I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Harper

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I stand corrected twice in a row on hon. Members’ constituency names—perhaps I need the help of the Boundary Commission to rearrange constituencies and thus learn them better. In all seriousness, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Boundary Commissions are independent. This is crucially important, and he would not expect me in this debate to be able to prejudge their reviews, and nor would I try to do so. Although I respect the points that he came here today to make, it is not for me to answer the question that he just posed.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point about the geographical size of constituencies. That was indeed considered when we looked at the rules that the Boundary Commissions were set. I accept that he may not feel that there was sufficient flexibility, but there are rules that govern the maximum geographical size of constituencies, thus giving the Boundary Commissions some scope to reflect the issues that he raised in the House today.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Harper

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

I shall keep my remarks extremely brief. With regard to the substance of the Committee proceedings, I have nothing to add to what I said at the two previous Committee sittings, or to what was said in response to an urgent question and in the emergency debate. However, I will take this opportunity to wish well the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, who will not be joining us at future sittings. We wish her much happiness in future.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I had not planned to speak in this Committee, having taken part in the Standing Order No. 24 debate on Monday, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has provoked me slightly. One or two of the points he made require a response.

I do not think that the Government have been disingenuous. That accusation is unfair. We gambolled around this territory in the House on Monday, but the Government have set out a principled reason. As I said on Monday, in 2011 Parliament took a decision, when it passed the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, to set up a boundary review process. That was disrupted at the other end of this building by some shenanigans by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who inserted an amendment out of the scope of the Bill to divert the boundary changes.

We are now on the second go, and I think it is reasonable to allow the boundary commissions to report—as they have to do by law between September and October of this year—and to allow the House to reflect on their report before we make further progress. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said, and she repeated what the Minister said, which was that the Government are not refusing to provide a money resolution forever; they simply do not think that one is appropriate at this time, until the House has had time to reflect on the report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Mark Harper

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

T10. Very good progress has been made both nationally and locally in getting unemployment and youth unemployment down. The answers today show that we should not stop there and put all that at risk. Instead, we should go further. Does the Minister agree that we should be doing even more to help, in particular, young people with disabilities or mental health conditions into work?

[Mr Harper]

I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she has held her Norwich for jobs initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Employment Minister has had the opportunity to go and see. We are keen to make sure that we improve performance in getting people on ESA back into work, and my hon. Friend will know particularly that we are trying a number of things in the area of mental health to make sure that we are more successful in that area.