Valedictory Debate

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking all the House staff through you, as so many colleagues have done. The first thing I need to say to right hon. and hon. Friends is that it is literally my fault that we are having a snap election, because it was I who legislated for the removal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, allowing the Prime Minister to call an election whenever he chose. I am sorry for that emotional rollercoaster.

I, too, will start by thanking my constituents, who have placed their trust in me five times. That makes me the longest-serving Member of Parliament for either of the two Norwich constituencies in modern times, and I am deeply proud of that. I would also like to thank all the volunteers at Norwich Conservatives. I, too, need to thank my office team, including the wonderful Alice Burt, who has worked for me for 14 years, since August 2010.

After some tough personal times, which I have shared with a few colleagues on these Benches and beyond, I really want to thank my friends here in this place, including but not limited to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who helped me through these times. It is the right time to step back, for me and my family, and indeed to step forward to the next chapter of life. I came here as the baby of the House, at age 27, and now I am at the ripe age of 42— I can feel a few Douglas Adams jokes coming on here, so I will just say that I now know the meaning of life and can say, “So long, and thanks for all the fish.” [Interruption.] Come on, that deserved more than that. Are there no more readers of Douglas Adams on these Benches than that?

It has been an absolute privilege to serve Norwich North. I am most proud of the employment project I began in my constituency called Norwich for Jobs. I am proud of the investment I have been able to secure for the area, with new train carriages now serving the whole of East Anglia. That is material to people’s jobs and prosperity. It has been a huge honour to be able to serve in Government and lead both the biggest Department and one of the newest. The passions I have from those Departments—for the labour market and technology—are ones I will take forward into my new challenges, especially in my continuing work to help those who are economically inactive into the right jobs for them.

Like many others who have spoken this afternoon, I am very proud of this House. I want to give the example of when we came together, across parties, to pass the British Sign Language Act 2022. We all know how important that is for many constituents, and in many cases it was downright iconic. I am very proud to have done that. Can I take this opportunity to urge Members who are standing to be accessible in their campaigning? I am afraid to say that includes making sure that there is a sign language interpreter in Downing Street whether it is raining or not. The same goes for all major announcements and from all parties. Let us do that so that 100% of voters and citizens are included in our political discourse.

I am glad to note that one of the last, quite substantial things the House has done is to make progress this week for the victims of the infected blood scandal, which reminds us of what we have to do better and what we must get right. From the last Parliament alone, I expect that we will be thinking again about the major decisions we had to take in those five years. I think about all the policy choices and terrible trade-offs that came from the pandemic alone; I regret some of those, and I do hope that they are the subject of a real debate in years to come.

From my roles in Government, I have a deep respect for a number of things that I want to touch on. From my first Government role in the Treasury was the notion that the public finances must be sound. From effectively a decade as the Constitution Minister and serving in the Northern Ireland Office, I have a huge respect for how our constitution and democracy work and how our Union holds together. As others have mentioned, working in the Whips Office gives you a deep respect for elected accountability through this place.

The role of Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, shared with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), reminds us of the importance of public services and our duties to them and reminds us of our opportunities to help people into work and find positions that are best for them. Finally, I was able to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) by covering for her as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. That allowed us to write history in how we do maternity leave at the highest levels, and it gives one personally a great sense of perspective and possibility about what is ahead for our nation.

Having served as a Minister under all five Conservative Prime Ministers, I need to gently correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) by saying that I share that record with him. The sixth Prime Minister that he and I served in the House under was Gordon Brown.

I add a further anecdote at this point: I wonder whether I might be one of the only Members of the House who has been mistaken for not one but two other Members of the House, one of whom is a man. I speak, of course, of the wonderful and late James Brokenshire, who it was a huge pleasure to work with in the Northern Ireland Office and in many other capacities, as many hon. Members did. It was, I think, Quentin Letts, then of the Daily Mail, who called us robot twins with bog-brush hair. I thought to myself, if that is what it takes to match up to James Brokenshire’s record of public service, I am proud to have been his twin.

The other hon. Member who I have been mistaken for is none other than the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which is perhaps more unusual. I met an absolutely wonderful resident in Norwich brandishing a Green poster from her garden two doors down the street from my house. She said, “I think this poster is yours.” I said, “I really don’t think it is. I think it must be yours. Allow me to return it to your garden.” She said, “I think I recognise you.” I said, “No, I’m sure you don’t.” She said, “I do. You’re that Caroline Lucas.” I corrected her, moved on, and left her to her Green activities. I hope that she and others vote Conservative at the election to come.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who has briefly left the Chamber, who was the campaign manager for my by-election in July 2009. I am deeply grateful to her for that and for the number of other ways in which she taught me how to do this job. From that, we should all remember the joys of July elections—let us put our sun hats and sun cream on, and let us not forget to have an ice cream. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who I think will speak later. I still owe him a dinner for the leg that he broke while campaigning for me in Norfolk that summer. I thank him and many others who came from across the country to help us in Norwich in that by-election.

To return to Norwich and Norfolk, it is an enormous privilege to have served in my home county. Having grown up in Norfolk, it was as great an honour to speak at my old high school as it was to speak at the United Nations on Government business. Both are equal in the work that we do for our community and our country. I thank my mentor, the noble Baroness Shephard in the other place, who was my Member of Parliament while I was growing up. She first met me when I was 12 and probably recruited me to the party and to the cause. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my parents and my family, which has have grown since I have been an MP. As we say in Norfolk, in a phrase that sums up tenacity and determination, keep a-troshin’ on—keep going, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To finish on a semi-comic note, my recent experience has been election, referendum, baby, election, baby, election, pandemic, cancer. Perhaps I am looking for a quieter life, but I hope that I never lose the sense of service, of empathy, of listening and of care for what people do, need and believe, because that is absolutely what we are here to do. I wish the next generation of public servants the courage to change what can be changed, the serenity and determination to keep a-troshin’ on on behalf of constituents, and the wisdom to serve both our communities and our country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Chloe, and best of luck for the future.

British Sign Language Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

3rd reading
Friday 18th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I entirely endorse the point that my right hon. Friend has just underlined, which was made very clearly by the hon. Member for West Lancashire. It took an enormous amount of hard work, passion and perseverance to get us to this point, and we want to finish the job.

I am grateful for the constructive spirit in which everyone in the Chamber has worked to build cross-party consensus for the Bill. It will make real improvements to the communication options, and the lives, of deaf people. As has been said, however, even harder work is ahead of us. At this point I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for reminding us that there is a head of steam behind the Bill.

Finally, let me thank all the campaigners—including those involved in the BSL Act Now! Campaign—who have worked tirelessly to get us to this point, alongside the hon. Member for West Lancashire, and thank Members on both sides of the House for their support. I hope we can all agree that today has been a victory for everyone involved, and also that there is more work to be done. I am proud of what we have achieved together with this Bill. We wish it well in the other place, and we look forward to the change that it will bring.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I put the Question, I am sure that we would like to hear once more from Rosie Cooper.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my remarks in respect of his amendment, which I will endeavour to come to after I have worked through all the clauses.

The scheme that we are proposing is the right one and I will come in a moment to why I think that that is the case when compared with other technical methods of achieving a five-year term that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. This clause provides for a maximum parliamentary term of five years from the date that Parliament first met, so we measure five years from the date of first meeting to the Dissolution of Parliament, and that is the Government’s proposition. We think that that provides the right balance of stability, flexibility and accountability that is entailed in returning to the arrangements that allow for a general election earlier than that. On that basis, I recommend that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

I shall speak very briefly to clause 5. It introduces the schedule to the Bill, which makes provision for the consequential amendments that are needed to ensure that other legislation operates effectively once the 2011 Act has been repealed and we return to the status quo ante. The consequential amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. They remove references to the Act in legislation and ensure that, after the repeal of the 2011 Act, other legislation that links to it still works. For example, in repealing the 2011 Act, they reflect the fact that there will no longer be fixed-term Parliaments, so the concept of an early general election would no longer exist in law.

Clause 5 also provides that the repeal of the 2011 Act by clause 1 does not affect the amendments and repeals made by the schedule to that Act. This ensures that essential provisions are not lost. It allows us to modify changes made by the 2011 Act and ensure the smooth running of elections by retaining sensible improvements made by that Act or subsequent to that Act. I know that those are some topics that we will come back to a little later as we progress through our debate this evening.

The schedule also makes a small number of minor changes to ensure the smooth running of elections. In short, this clause is necessary to ensure that electoral law and other related parts of the statute book continue to function smoothly. As such, I recommend that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 is the one that we all know and love that deals with extent, early commencement and short title. It confirms that the territorial extent of the Bill is the United Kingdom, except for a very small number of amendments in the schedule where the extent is more limited. The clause ensures that the Bill has an early commencement, meaning that it comes into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent, and it provides that the short title of the Bill will be the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2021.

That gives me an opportunity to explain that the Government have agreed with the recommendation of the Joint Committee that a Bill of constitutional significance that seeks to put in place arrangements that deliver legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process of dissolving one Parliament and calling another should be titled accordingly. The short title now reflects the purpose of the Bill and will help to ensure that it is clearly understood and that successive Parliaments are able to discern the intended effect of the legislation. I therefore propose that this clause stand part of the Bill. Mr Evans, would you like me also to make a remark about the schedule and then turn to the amendments?

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

indicated assent.

[Chloe Smith]

In that case, Mr Evans, I am going to carry on until you tell me otherwise. There is an amount to get through, but I hope to do so.

The schedule provides for a number of changes to primary and secondary legislation to ensure the effective operation of the statute book when the 2011 Act is repealed. These amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. The schedule works with clause 6. As I have explained, we want to make sure that references to the 2011 Act work elsewhere in other legislation. There are some key changes in the schedule to draw to the attention of the House.

The first is to rule 1 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which sets out the election timetable. The Bill amends that rule to ensure that the trigger for the election process in the case of a parliamentary general election is the Dissolution of Parliament, following the recommendation of the FTPA Joint Committee.

The second change provides additional certainty in relation to the election process. The election writ is deemed to have been received the day after the Dissolution of Parliament. This will allow returning officers to begin arrangements the day after the election writs are issued, enabling all constituencies to begin making the necessary preparations, even in the event that the physical delivery of the writ is delayed. Similar deeming amendments are included for by-elections.

The third update is to section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1985. Under the existing legislation, in the event of the demise of the Crown after Dissolution or up to seven days before, polling day is postponed by a fortnight. The 1985 Act provides no discretion or flexibility to further alter the date of the poll. This Bill provides limited discretion for the Prime Minister to move polling day up to seven days either side of this default 14-day postponement, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council. This is beneficial because it ensures that enough flexibility is built into the system should such specific and unlikely circumstances ever occur. There is also flexibility to move the date set for the first meeting of Parliament in such circumstances—again, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council.

The last key change that I will highlight in this section is to the Recall of MPs Act 2015, which is amended to ensure that there continues to be provision to prevent or terminate recall petitions close to a general election to avoid redundant by-elections. This means that there is no requirement to trigger a recall petition if the last possible polling day for a general election, based on Parliament running its full term, is less than six months away, and a recall petition is to be terminated when Parliament is dissolved. For the reasons that I have set out, I recommend that the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

If it remains convenient to you, Mr Evans, I will now start to work my way through the amendments that have been tabled, but I remain at your disposal to return to the clauses if hon. Members would like me to respond after they have spoken to their amendments.

New clause 2 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). As I understand it, it seeks to provide a role for the House of Commons in approving an early general election by simple majority vote. This would adjust the arrangements that exist under the 2011 Act by removing the two-thirds majority requirement. It would in itself be a departure from the prior constitutional norm, whereby the Prime Minister could request an early Dissolution of Parliament in order to test the view of the electorate. As we have already begun to touch on in this afternoon’s debate, the deadlock and paralysis created by the 2011 Act did rather demonstrate why a prescriptive statutory approach does not work. Instead, what we are doing in the Bill is returning to a set of widely understood constitutional conventions and practices. Those tried and tested arrangements are the right ones, and this new clause would run against the grain of those arrangements.

It is, after all, a core underlying principle that the authority of the Government and the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, are derived from the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The 2011 Act attached confidence and the decision of the Prime Minister to call an election to statutory motions, which gave the Commons a direct say in Dissolution, but it is also possible to argue that those arrangements hindered the function of democracy by making it harder to have necessary elections. Instead, the House should indeed be able to express its view on confidence, but in a much freer manner. We do not need the prescriptive statutory approach of either the 2011 Act or, I fear, this new clause.

New clause 2(5) would require the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the date of the election within 30 days of the House approving a motion for an election. I would argue that this is not necessary. Under the Bill, once a general election has been called and Dissolution takes place, the election timetable in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes the provision for the timing of an election very clear. Again, rather than introducing prescriptive arrangements, we believe that we should return to tried and tested standards whereby it is a core principle that the Prime Minister must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. New measures around that concept are not needed.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. I was going to address it in just a moment, because he raised it at the very outset, so I will come back to it shortly.

Let us be realistic. What is the prerogative power here for? It is a bit more like “break glass in case of emergency” than it is the kind of scheme that I think the Liberal Democrats are looking for. I think we can all agree that people do not welcome needless upheaval—Brenda from Bristol put it pretty well—but they do want their role in resolving a crisis. Vernon Bogdanor, in evidence to Committees along the journey of this Bill, made the point very well. Essentially, unsuccessful Governments have attempted to get to five years. Successful Governments have gone to the people at four years. Anything short of that is a national emergency. What we are talking about today is what needs to happen in the cases of emergency or crisis. I note the arguments made for fixed terms, particularly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but we have tried designing those and they have not worked, so what we are returning to here is an arrangement that did work.

I want to reassure the House on a couple of points, as I said I would to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The long campaign expenditure controls are not changed by this repeal. Those arrangements are that if Parliament is not dissolved 55 months from its first meeting, then the long campaign controls apply. That situation continues. That has not changed. I also point out that there is a measure in the schedule to this Bill that adds to that in respect of third party donations. The schedule also provides that the trigger for the election timetable in the case of a general election is the Dissolution of Parliament. That is an important safeguard that we have built into the Bill, acknowledging arguments made on that note from the Joint Committee.

I conclude by thanking hon. Members once again for their contributions this afternoon. It has been a very good debate, and I am delighted to be back and to be part of it. My priority with this Bill is to encourage consensus, because that is what will give us the most effective operation of the conventions that must endure once again.

I close with the points made by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the nature of our constitution:

“at the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangements is a fine but constantly-shifting balance of convention, principle and law, that provides clear guidance, but also flexibility… In areas of prerogative power, the Sovereign remains the constitutional backstop.”

I could not have put it better. None the less, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his inimitable style, did put it better. He said that our institutions are often the envy of the world, and I could not agree more. It is those that I want to uphold. This Bill will return our country to successful constitutional arrangements that have stood the test of time and will continue to serve the people, with the choice ultimately in their hands.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am anticipating a Division, so could Members please follow covid regulations as they go to vote?

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Mr Evans]

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

[Chloe Smith]

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

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If my amendments were not within the scope, Mr Speaker would surely not have selected them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is absolutely correct. That clarification was right; the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.

[Miss Smith]

I have no intention of disputing your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that was not the intention of my comments. I merely wanted to say that this Bill has never had the intention of addressing the religion of the monarch or indeed of those in the line of succession.

Voting Age

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I will answer the hon. Gentleman but take no further interventions on that because I have little time. He is confusing the concept of activities in schools with the national curriculum, which are two different things.

We need to give young people a say in the issues and decisions that affect them. The Government have made that a key principle in our “Positive for Youth” policy and are engaging young people in the political process in a number of ways. The British Youth Council has received funding from the Department for Education to promote the voice of young people at national and local level. That includes establishing a new national scrutiny group of representative and elected young people to advise Ministers across the UK Government directly. I look forward to my first meeting with the group. The Cabinet Office is working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote to pilot different approaches to engaging directly with young people and black and minority ethnic groups in the UK, including in their schools, colleges and communities, to increase their understanding of both the process and relevance of registering to vote.

Hon. Members have argued that 16 and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote in order to help engage young people at an early age in our democratic and political processes, but they do not yet convince me. I have not seen compelling evidence. The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2008—no doubt it was part of their onward journey—considered ways in which to develop young people’s understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics. It also considered whether the voting age ought to be set at 16. In its summer 2009 report, it felt unable to make a recommendation on whether the voting age should be lowered. It suggested that there was a lack of evidence regarding the merits of votes at 16, and noted that there were vigorous views on either side of the debate, which we have heard in the debate. It said that it is

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

That speaks for itself and sums up several strands of the debate.

Those findings were in line with those made five years earlier by the Electoral Commission in its 2004 report on the age of majority. The commission recommended in its report that the minimum age stays at 18 years. It also recommended reducing the minimum candidacy age from 21 to 18 so that voting and candidacy are the same—a number of hon. Members have made that point—and the change was duly introduced.

The evidence is therefore not clear cut. We should certainly continue to consider the question, and I welcome the role of the Backbench Business Committee in that. Perhaps the more pressing question is what we can do to increase registration and turnout in groups who can vote. Registration among young people is lower than among other population groups. Recent Electoral Commission research shows that 55% of 17 and 18-year-olds and 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds were on the register, compared with 94% of over-65s. Those figures are telling.

I also note that the turnout figures for 18 to 24-year-olds have been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, approximately a quarter of that group did not vote. That is important to know and something we all ought to take seriously and work on. There is clearly an issue about engagement, particularly with younger electors, which goes beyond franchise, and the Government are trying to address it.

We are introducing the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which I know we shall enjoy debating in the House next week. It will go some way towards changing the electoral registration process for the better by introducing individual registration. It will create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration. The move from paper to digital will make registration more convenient and increase accessibility—a significant transition. We want to ensure that during this period we enable as many people as possible of all ages to register to vote. We know we need to go further than those changes alone. I mentioned that the Government are working with a range of organisations to seek to engage individuals and communities from all sections of society into the political process, and specifically to drive up registration rates in under-registered groups.

The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to increase voter registration levels, but, to return to the main theme of today’s debate, there is no silver bullet solution. Increasing democratic engagement is not solely the responsibility of Government. Politicians, political parties, electoral administrators, teachers, young people themselves and others in society all have a role to play in encouraging young people to register to vote, and then to actually use their vote in elections and referendums. We must provide people with compelling reasons to vote.

I pay tribute again to hon. Members and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this compelling debate, one in which evidence and principle have their place, and I hope we have done it justice today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sum up for no more than two minutes, I call Stephen Williams.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That probably goes too wide for this particular debate. I call Chloe Smith.

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I welcome the three contributions and the interventions we have just heard. I wholeheartedly welcome the cross-party support that the Bill enjoys overall. In responding to the points made, I am sure that I will make my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) happy today. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his learned and helpful contributions.

On a brief note of discord, I am afraid, I must recommend a purchase to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), who kindly recommended motor insurance to me and llama insurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I must recommend to him the Standing Orders of the House of Commons—he can purchase a copy for a mere £10, if he cannot find a copy in the Library—page 53 of which contains the answer to his questions about Second Reading Committees in relation to Law Commission Bills. I recommend that reading to him.

I will address the new clause in some detail and answer the question about review. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be pleased to know that the Treasury is already committed to a post-implementation review of the Bill in three to five years which will examine whether the Act, as we hope it will then be, has achieved its objectives, identify whether there are any unintended consequences, and assess the costs and benefits of the legislation. I say to the hon. Member for Nottingham East, then, who might press his new clause, that given that it seeks a review, it is an unnecessary addition to the Bill.

It is also unnecessary, particularly in the context of the Bill, to draw our attention to the cost and availability of consumer insurance, because the Government already take those issues very seriously. We do not need a review of the Bill to draw attention to the issues because we are already taking action on them. I will go into two of the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: motor insurance and flood insurance. Hon. Members will know that three weeks ago the Prime Minister met the insurance industry and consumer groups to discuss rising premiums and the steps that we will take to bring them down.

On motor insurance, the Government have already taken a wide-ranging series of actions to tackle the rising costs of car insurance, and we are committed to doing even more. We are proceeding with a series of legal reforms that will reduce the costs associated with personal injury claims. The cost of claims following motor accidents is a crucial driver of insurance premiums, and we think that under the current system too many people can profit from minor or spurious accidents at the expense of motorists. We expect our ban on referral fees and our reform of no win, no fee agreements to reduce both the level of fees and the number of frivolous claims. We have also committed to reducing the £1,200 fee that lawyers can currently earn from small-value personal injury claims. In return, insurers have committed to ensuring that those savings will be passed directly on to policyholders, which I am sure all hon. Members here today would welcome.

Taxation Freedom Day Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Friday 25th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is making a delightful speech, but it has very little to do with what we are discussing today. It appears to me to be a filibuster, intended to prevent the Bill from securing a Committee stage. Is that what the Government are up to?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Had I heard a filibuster I would have stopped it, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had assumed that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) would appreciate a Minister’s taking the points made by Back Benchers seriously and dealing with them individually, which is what I am endeavouring to do.

Let me return to the subject of tax freedom day, as it is right for me to do in the remaining minutes that are available. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering invited me specifically to rebut four points. He felt that an aspersion had been cast on the methodology proposed in the Bill. The aspersion that I would cast is that there is no such thing as the average person. That is what chiefly concerns me about the calculation establishing when tax freedom day should fall: I do not believe that it would represent the average citizen in a meaningful way.

My hon. Friend asked me to deal with the way in which the proposed methodology does or does not regard or disregard public benefits. I am glad that he welcomes the fact that taxation has another side, namely what can be done with the money once it has been collected. I shall say more about that in a moment.

My hon. Friend also asked me to discuss whether tax freedom day had or had not varied very little in the last decade. I think that that has been covered by earlier remarks, and by the clarification offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North. The numbers do go up and down by small amounts. Like other Members, I have reservations about whether we should burden the Office for National Statistics with this further task—and, indeed, whether we should burden the Treasury, which, as Members will know, is one of the smaller Departments in terms of the number of people who work there. No doubt Members welcome that, and do not wish it to become any larger.

Fuel Prices

Debate between Chloe Smith and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona O'Donnell]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that she is not giving way for the duration of her speech.

[Miss Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I need to explain that our fuel duty cut was on top of an increase in approved mileage allowance payments; that helps employees and volunteers who use their own cars. I think that, in the light of their speeches this afternoon, my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), will welcome that. That is all on top of the increase in the personal allowance, cuts in corporation tax, above-inflation increases in child tax credits, and the triple guarantee for pensioners. That is real help for motorists, businesses and families, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) said.

Let us not forget that although the Opposition have talked so much today about helping motorists, they could not even bring themselves to offer their support for the fuel duty cut, or the increase in the supplementary charge on oil and gas companies to fund it, in the Finance Bill debates.