EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I shall keep my comments brief. The statutory instrument is a sensible and proportionate measure that is in no way harmful to decent process, as the Minister sensibly set out. It simply picks up and shifts the period, which is a measured way of dealing with this unfortunate problem. I do not like it that the problem has arisen. I was the Minister who introduced online registration, an innovation of which I am very proud, and I wish the system well; we all want to see it functioning properly.

Let us not forget what the alternative to taking this measure would be. It would be to allow an unlawful situation to have persisted from Tuesday night, whereby people with the right to register to vote were denied the ability to do so—and an arbitrary situation also, given that, because of the nature of queueing on a website, it would not be possible to be even-handed towards citizens. It would be deeply ethically wrong to allow such a situation to persist, so we have no alternative but to take this measure.

There is another reason. None of us should accept poor service from the Government towards their citizens—those citizens ought to be the Government’s master—so I greatly respect the ministerial team for their efforts to ensure that public services, digital as well as paper-based, work better for citizens. That is very important.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Lady think it a fair point that the upsurge and crash occurred after the big debate between the Prime Minister and Nigel Farage? Might not the Government have anticipated a surge of interest at that point?

[Chloe Smith]

The Government have answered that point for themselves many times yesterday and this morning, but I think it was a foreseeable circumstance, what with the TV scheduling and the availability of online registration. I am, however, reassured by what I have heard today about a further multiplication of capacity. It is the right response. As I have said, retrospectively allowing for a further 48 hours—we hope that gets the message out—is a sensible solution.

I offer one more practical thought. If would-be registrants got as far as leaving their contact details on the site before it failed, it might be possible for them to be contacted directly in the remaining hours. I offer that as a suggestion. I know that it will not cover everyone who tried to register on Tuesday night, but it might be possible in some cases, and it would be a sensible thing to attempt, in order to avoid an unlawful or arbitrary loss of those citizens’ rights.

I end with a point that The Economist made last week, in reference to American politics:

“Any political party that hopes for lower turnout has lost its way…lawmakers must decide whether they still believe in the good sense of those they aspire to govern, or whether they lost that faith somewhere on the way to the statehouse.”

That should be the principle in all our hearts, both in this referendum and, crucially, as we go about politics from hereon in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to deal with her question in enough detail.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In September 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government wanted to reduce the cost of politics. To date, 128 new peers have been appointed at a cost of £131,000 each per year, with more planned. Why are the Government no longer concerned about reducing the cost of politics?

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman’s party refused to allow the timetable that would have allowed the Government to plan to instil greater legitimacy and constrain the size of the House of Lords. I think that answers his question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

There are indeed many helpful lessons to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission notes that many of the key lessons from the experience of Northern Ireland have already been addressed by the principles included in what is now the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Government have said that the official date for the implementation of individual electoral registration is to be December 2016, yet they have also said that they want to bring forward IER by one year. Why are the Government facing both ways on the issue?

[Miss Smith]

It is clear from comments that I have made at the Dispatch Box and that our noble Friends have made in another place that the Government’s implementation plan remains firmly committed to 2015 as the date for transition to an IER-only register. Amendments made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament provide a safeguard that extends the final point for transition to an IER-only register to December 2016. Those amendments, however, do not alter our aim to deliver that register in December 2015. They simply add a safeguard so that Parliament has a say, but I do not expect Parliament to have to make that call because I expect our transition plan to be robust.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few comments in response to what has been said. I suspect it comes as no surprise to anyone that this is the quieter end of this afternoon’s work and that we might finish rather sooner than the programme motion suggests.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), if I understood him correctly, urged me to take a slightly different approach to the programme’s implementation date. Let me deal with that first. I stress again the points I made in my opening speech: like the hon. Gentleman, we want the transition to IER to be as clear and easy as possible for electors and administrators. The Electoral Commission is a key part of that work through its delivery of both the nuts and bolts—that is, the forms and operational guidance—and the publicity campaign that will accompany the transition.

It is important that we are all clear on the implementation plan. As my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire stated in the other place when outlining these amendments, we expect the transition to IER to take place on the time scale set out in the implementation plan published last July. I reassure the House, the Electoral Commission, administrators and electors that we are committed to implementing the transition to IER during 2014 and 2015, resulting in a register published in December 2015 that includes only individually registered electors.

[Wayne David]

If the Minister is reiterating the point that the Government are committed to the original implementation plan, why are they proposing to change the Bill? She cannot face both ways; it is one or the other. We all agree that we want clarity, but it must have a firm base. She cannot have her cake and eat it, as I said earlier.

[Miss Smith]

I humbly suggest that the other place—the revising Chamber that it indeed is—thought that this was a sensible way to go. I simply note, of course, that although I would have liked things to be as originally proposed—2015, with no further detail—this is a concession tabled in response to concerns expressed in the other place.

[Wayne David]

As the Minister belatedly says, of course this Government amendment was proposed in the other place. What I am suggesting is that, rather than having clarity as the prime motivation, the Government were quite keen to have a grubby little compromise and the Bill deserves better. It is far too important in principle to have a convoluted, contradictory implementation date. What we need, again, is clarity and straightforwardness. The people on the ground—the electoral registration officers—require that.

[Miss Smith]

I give the hon. Gentleman clarity and straightforwardness, as I have done several times now and will happily do again. The implementation plan for IER remains exactly the same. The Government amendment was tabled in response to concerns expressed in the other place. It strikes a sensible balance, and I note again all the benefits of a two-year transition that we have planned for, such as two canvasses and, of course, a general election where interest in politics will be high, starting in November 2013—that is, the transition, not the general election—backed up by our national campaign with the Electoral Commission to maximise registration. All those elements will now proceed apace, to the plan that we have set out, and I think that that is absolutely clear. I welcome the Electoral Commission’s direct confirmation that

“For practical planning purposes, the Commission’s view is that it will…advise EROs to plan on the basis that the point of removal is likely to be 2015”.

That answers the point and makes things as clear as possible.

[Wayne David]

The Minister is generous in giving way, but given that she has been unwilling to accept my reasonable suggestion, does she agree that at the end of the day the implementation date of IER will depend on the result of the next general election?

[Miss Smith]

It is no surprise to anyone to learn there will be a general election in 2015, and it is no surprise to anyone who reads the detail of the amendments to learn that a key decision will take place in the summer following that election. I make no secret of that. In fact, it is as well for me to have the chance to talk briefly about that because what we see is the ability for the then Government to take a reasoned and data-driven view of the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers as they will then exist. For that reason, I have faith in the approach of the 2015 stop point being the right one, because I am confident that our plan will have delivered the completeness and accuracy that we all seek.

[Wayne David]

We are coming to the close of our parliamentary proceedings on the Bill, and I accept what the Minister says: the Government have a principled position, as I believe that we do, in wanting to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to be on the electoral register are indeed on it. As was mentioned earlier this afternoon, there is a great deal of concern that the Government might not be doing as much as they could to get groups that are traditionally under-represented on the electoral register engaged in the new process. In the Minister’s concluding remarks, will she reassure the House that that work is under way and will continue apace?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly do seek to give that reassurance, but not—I would like it noted—in response to the frankly lurid accusations that have been made this afternoon by Members who are no longer present in the Chamber. The Government’s aim is to tackle electoral fraud and to improve the integrity of the register. We are indeed undertaking a programme of activity to get the maximum number of eligible people on to the electoral register. That is vital. The Bill enables the introduction of a modernised electoral registration system that makes it easier for people to vote. It will improve the integrity of the register and, therefore, of the electoral processes that are based on it.

I welcome the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) in seeking for voters to be able to cast their votes at polling stations. I am well aware of the history of that debate, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I recognise that in the course of the Bill we have been able to take a pragmatic approach to the concerns of both Houses and, I hope, to accommodate them in a way that delivers a sensible implementation programme and a Bill of which we can all be proud.

Lords amendment 7 agreed to.

Lords amendments 10, 11, 1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 to 22 agreed to.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might come back with that response. However, the difficulty with the regency legislation is that there is more than one Act. There have been a number of amending Acts. He referred to the 1937 Act, but since then there have been what some people have referred to as ad hoc departures from that legislation. In fact, the Act talks about the best person succeeding to the throne, rather than the next in line. What on earth does that mean? How do we define the “best person”? This underlines the point that the legislation will inevitably have unintended consequences that will have to be looked at in detail, with a cool head, over a reasonable period of time.

Nevertheless, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon. We have focused on the tightly defined legislation before us, but Members have also rightly taken the opportunity to extend the debate. We have now begun to open the new chapter of constitutional debate that we need to have in this country. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press the new clause to a vote.

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

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today for their erudite and comprehensive contributions. I join the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in being a fan of middle English and old English; if he would like to join me in the Tea Room some time, I am sure that we could discuss that.

Through amendments 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to ensure that a child of the Roman Catholic faith may later convert to the Protestant faith and succeed to the throne. Let me first deal with the Government’s understanding of the Act of Settlement, which we share with him. The law in this area is certainly not easy, but on balance, we agree with his interpretation of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights as meaning that a Roman Catholic may not convert to the Protestant faith and then succeed to the throne. This is, however, an aspect of our constitution that we do not think has ever been tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) noted that such circumstances would be unlikely to arise within our lifetimes. The bar appears to be on anyone who has ever “professed” the Roman Catholic faith, or held communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Once disqualified, they are excluded for ever from succeeding to the throne.

I should like to make a few points on amendments 1 and 2 before I turn to new clause 1. My first point relates to scope. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, the scope of the Bill is narrow. I appreciate that there are reasons to criticise the law as it stands, but the amendments stray into new territory and go beyond the limited aims of the Bill. In passing, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). We missed him in the earlier debates last week, but he enlivened us today when he came as close as anyone has done in the debate to asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister accept the reality of change in this extremely complex constitutional area? Whatever the moral arguments in favour of change, they must nevertheless be matched to the practicalities of constitutional change and achieving the necessary consensus to bring about that change.

[Miss Smith]

I welcome the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who brings me back to the point that I do not believe there is a consensus among the public for any radical divergence from the traditional arrangements for the established Church in this country.

In new clause 1, my hon. Friend proposes a perhaps rather ingenious solution: splitting the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England from the role of sovereign, in a method akin to a regency. Such a split would represent a fundamental change to the role of the monarch in English society in relation to the established Church, and could not be considered without extensive consultation. I am delighted that the House had sufficient time to debate all the matters that were in scope last week, but new clause 1 suggests a more radical diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy. There is not public support for the proposed change, which opens up a series of extremely difficult questions about what the relationship would be between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor, and whether such arrangements could continue to support the established place of the Church of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) raised a question about how the coronation and accession oaths could be made to work in such an instance.

The Government have no intention of going further than the limited scope of the Bill as presented. The amendments and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would introduce instability and uncertainty of a type that is not welcome in the institution we are discussing, which has served the country well for generations in its temporal role and in its spiritual role as articulated. As there is neither public support for the admirably comprehensive arguments that have been made, nor appropriate space for consultation on them considering that the legislation must be taken through many other realms, I invite my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

With brevity and the leave of the House, I simply want to confirm that I would be happy to expand the explanatory notes as the Bill goes to the other place. I also want to suggest that everyone in the House—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman not allow me the pleasure of simply saying, “God save the Queen”?

[Wayne David]

I have no objection at all—the Minister can say it again if she likes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned how the six people nearest in line to the throne could lose their place if the Queen did not consent to their marriage. It is important to say on the record that the explanatory notes state clearly that that would be the case; in fact, it says so in the summary on the front page. I do not think, therefore, that it is fair to say that the issue has not been referred to properly in the House—it has been referred to in the documents and in last week’s debate.

It is also important to remember that we are talking about a constitutional monarchy that has a close relationship with the Government of the day. I am sure that a monarch would not take any action if they believed that, in doing so, they would be acting incorrectly in the background.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Thank you for that short intervention.

Voting Age

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I am pleased to know that such people are in the Gallery and engaged with this debate, and no doubt watching us on television. While I am at it, I will pay tribute to the Norfolk Members of the Youth Parliament who also came to this place for that debate.

Whether the voting age should be lowered to 16 is a question on which many Members of this House have passionate and strongly held views—indeed, often opposing views—and those have been expressed again during this debate. Some were pro lowering the voting age and some were against, but Members from all sides of the House interacted strongly and respectfully with each other—in particular let me single out the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and his powerful comments about much of the work he does for the protection of children outside of today’s narrow topic.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on numerous occasions his personal view that there is merit in lowering the voting age, and his views are shared by many in the House. My party tends not to agree, although I am happy to concede that if my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) were in his place, he would show that there is never complete unanimity along party lines on this issue. My political interest began at age 16, when from my comprehensive school in Norfolk I tried to set up a youth forum for Norfolk—I suspect I might have been unusual in that degree of engagement. I accept that there are good arguments from all sides about this issue, although I am not persuaded of the merits of a change to the voting age.

Let me respond to the comments made by the Opposition Front-Bench speakers. I was interested to hear their arguments—as I was to hear those of other hon. Members —and to read comments by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the internet. I note, however, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) voted on the 2005 ten-minute rule Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West, and nor did the Leader of the Opposition or a single member of today’s shadow Cabinet. Although I hear that the Opposition’s views are growing stronger, I wonder what they did during 13 years of government if they did not find time to make that passion felt. A clear case for change is needed—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make one.

[Wayne David]

I am the first to say that this is an evolving debate. I am now convinced that the time has come for us to make the change, but a number of years ago I was not convinced. I think that the Government ought to move with the times and listen to what sensible people are saying.

[Miss Smith]

I hear the hon. Gentleman. As I say, we need a clear case for change and I will use the time available to me today to look at the facts surrounding the issue because I do not think the case is yet made.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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—

Electoral Registration

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[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.

Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

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.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chloe Smith and Wayne David

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend is right. Much needs to be done to make it easier for those people to register and to place their votes. As I have said, we are undertaking a comprehensive programme of reforms through individual electoral registration. We are also interested in looking into methods such as online registration, which might help the community whom my hon. Friend holds so dear.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Government told us that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which would introduce individual electoral registration, was a priority and must be introduced as quickly as possible, but we have now been told that the Conservatives are delaying it in the other place. What is the reason for that delay? Has it anything to do with parliamentary boundaries? Yes or no?

[Miss Smith]

Again, Mr. Speaker, you would no doubt remind me not to discuss the workings of the other place here. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman can read for himself the speeches of my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, who made clear what that place must do with potentially inadmissible amendments. I also think it is clear that the programme designed by the last Government—a voluntary version of individual electoral registration—would have led to confusion and significant extra cost, and I therefore do not think it right for Opposition Members to lecture us about such matters.