Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will. I pay tribute to Becky Maddern, who I too find inspirational. Indeed, I was thinking about her only at the weekend as I visited a playground with my own children and looked at the range of swings and equipment that was available. This is incredibly important because disabled children deserve to play as much as their brothers, sisters and friends. That underlines why our strategy is a very wide-ranging one that goes across the full range of public services and into culture, leisure and play as well, because it all matters greatly.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One hidden disability often is an acquired brain injury, and 10 days ago, the Government committed to creating a national strategy for acquired brain injury. Will this Department ensure that it fully co-operates with the programme board, which will be set up in the new year, so that we can radically transform the opportunities and chances in life for those who have had an acquired brain injury?

[Chloe Smith]

I am very grateful for that question, and I pay tribute to the history that the hon. Member has and the work that he is doing in this area. Two Ministers in this Department have some personal direct experience of these issues, so yes, the Department for Work and Pensions will be keen to make good progress with that work.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

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

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But it is not actually five years; it is five years and a bit, is it not? As the Septennial Act 1716 did, it goes from the date of the first sitting of the new Parliament. It means that, if we stick with this, we will have the longest period from election to election of any democracy in the world. Would it not be better for the period from election to election to be at most five years?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

All right then, if it is the simplest way of doing it, what is the last date that the next general election can be held if all this is carried as the Minister says?

[Chloe Smith]

With respect, that is not the right quiz question—the right quiz question is whether, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the period would be five years plus 25 days. That would, I believe, arise from his amendment, because he is not counting the length of the election campaign, whereas our provision is five years from first sitting to last sitting, so we are trying to measure the life of a Parliament. I am not trying to engage in maths problems; I simply think that this is the most sensible way to measure it, and I hope hon. Members might agree. [Interruption.] I am really not going to engage in maths questions beyond that. We need a clear and easily understood scheme. I think we are all agreed that it ought to be five years, and we are dealing with how to achieve that. The Government’s proposition is that it should be, as I say, from five years after Parliament has first met. That is important.

Let me turn to the pair of amendments that relate to the shortening of the election timetable: new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. I am absolutely sure that there will be some very strong arguments put in this area. To try to help the Committee, I will set out why we have our current timetable and then seek to address what I would anticipate to be some of the core arguments that right hon. and hon. Members will raise.

The current timetable was introduced in 2013 through the Electoral Administration Act 2006, which absorbed fundamental shifts brought about through having postal votes on demand and individual electoral registration. As I have explained, the Bill seeks to return us to the status quo ante while retaining sensible changes that have been made since 2011 to enable the smooth running of elections, which are, in my view, of benefit to voters. The current timetable is one of those changes. It provides a balance between allowing sufficient time to run the polls effectively and for the public to be well informed, while not preventing Parliament from avoiding sitting for any longer than is necessary, which is a very important consideration.

On the requirements for running polls effectively, the 25 days working days are necessary to deliver elections, which are now often more complex than at any other point in our history, for reasons, as I mentioned, to do with postal voting on demand, but also online individual electoral registration. That was a fundamental constitutional change that enabled increasingly higher numbers of last-minute applications. To illustrate that, at the most recent general election almost 660,000 applications were made on the last day possible. Before 2000, as I said, there was no postal voting on demand, and it has since grown in numbers to represent nearly 20% of registered electors. Both things increased the complexity and demands of an election timetable.

The amendments refer to weekends and bank holidays in the election period. Local authority electoral services teams who do this work are already often working weekends and overtime to make elections work successfully. I also note that elections do not just rely on local authorities and their staff; there is a significant commercial element to their delivery through many suppliers, including, but not limited to, the software for maintaining the registers, and the printing and postage of paperwork such as the poll cards, ballot papers and postal votes. There is very little room for error on all that. Creating and maintaining the capacity to deliver it can be extremely challenging, especially at short notice. Weekends and bank holidays are not necessarily in our gift.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

So will the Minister give way to me instead?

[Chloe Smith]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you. The question then is: if not now, when? That has still not been answered. If we are not to debate the matter today, I presume that the Government still believe that Prorogation should not be justiciable, so when are we going to discuss legislative measures to deal with Prorogation?

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a great pleasure to open this debate. The purpose of the Bill is straightforward: to meet the Government’s manifesto pledge of delivering updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same. We will do so on the basis of 650 constituencies.

The principal legislative framework set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 remains in place. The Bill makes a small number of amendments to that in order to move us forward with some aspects of the timing and the process of future boundary reviews and, as I said, returning the number of constituencies to 650.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There is a fundamental flaw, which the Minister brought out for us in her very first paragraph. I think Ministers think that by trying to rejig the constituencies they will make every vote count equally. That is not true. The only way we can do that is by having a proportional electoral system. We could make every person count equally if we counted our boundaries not by the number of registered voters in a constituency but by the number of people, which is what every other country in the world does.

[Chloe Smith]

A huge chunk of what the hon. Gentleman proposes is out of the scope of the Bill, but in terms of what is in scope, I hope therefore that he will reject the Labour party’s amendment, which goes against equalising the size of constituencies by arguing against the tolerance quota. I am sure he will consider that as he comes to vote tonight.

Let me pre-empt a question that might legitimately be asked: why are we doing this now, given the other challenges that are presented by the coronavirus? Of course, we absolutely rely on the electors of the UK to cast their vote and choose the Government of the day, and fundamental to that is the idea that each vote carries the same weight. We can achieve those equal votes only through a robust system of boundary reviews. They should be regular, thorough and impartial, and it is those reviews that provide us with updated and equal constituencies.

The last implemented update of Westminster constituencies was based on electoral data from the very early 2000s. That means that our current constituencies take no account of our youngest voters, and nor do they reflect nearly two decades of demographic shift, house building and migration. That cannot be right. The purpose of the Bill is to update those rules. It needs to do that so that the next review, which is due to start in early 2021, can proceed promptly and deliver, with some certainty, the updated and equal constituencies that the electorate deserves.

I will run through the main elements of the Bill. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say at the outset that in doing this I have engaged extensively with interested parties, including representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators, to ensure that these proposals are as good as they can be.

As I mentioned at the start, the Bill will amend the existing legislation to ensure that we continue to have 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, as we do now. In order to achieve that, the Bill brings to a close the 2018 boundary review, without implementation. It removes the Government’s obligation to bring those recommendations of the 2018 review into effect, because those proposals would take us down to 600 constituencies.

This is a change of policy from that adopted under the coalition Government. We have listened to views expressed across the House, including that of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I am pleased that Opposition Members have stated their support for retaining 650 constituencies. We believe that the decision to move to 600 seats is no longer the right choice for the British public because circumstances have changed. In the past decade, the population has grown and we have, of course, left the European Union, which means that significant areas of policy and law making are coming back to all the legislatures of the Union, including the UK Parliament.

Lobby and Media Briefings: Journalists' Access

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful wider point, which is how we, as a Government, can use policy and indeed scrutinise it here in this place—I say this as the Budget and other such vehicles come up—to look at ways to support the vibrancy of our press and media across the country. I referenced the Cairncross review earlier. These things, together with fiscal measures, are important in that debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I confess that there is one journalist I would quite like to keep out of Downing Street, but he is the Prime Minister and, unfortunately, he won the general election.

There is a serious issue here: every political generation in government want to try to avoid scrutiny if possible, and it is the job of this House to try to ensure that they do not get away with it. So, all the whataboutery in the world will not stop us complaining when we see a clear pattern of the Prime Minister running his leadership campaign, running his general election campaign and now running the Government in a way that is trying to avoid scrutiny. I am sure that, in private, the Minister would agree.

[Chloe Smith]

This is simply barking up the wrong tree again. The Government are ensuring that they are open for scrutiny. The Foreign Secretary stood here yesterday and took scores of questions on the very same subject matter. He was again on television shows on Sunday. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was on a number of programmes yesterday. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was out this morning; the Home Secretary was out this morning. The Prime Minister himself took many questions on the subject matter in hand yesterday. Nobody is hiding from scrutiny.

House of Commons Financial Plan and Draft Estimates

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith]

Indeed. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to come back to the Chair of the Committee on that point so that it can be made clear.

On the question about the statutory footing of the Finance Committee compared with that which the House of Commons Commission enjoys, the Commission’s statutory footing gives it the authority that it needs to make the decisions that we ask of it, whereas the Finance and Administration Committees are advisory bodies. Clearly, there would need to be some consultation across the House to be able properly to scope such a decision to put those two advisory bodies on to a statutory footing. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is keen to see a more democratic governance structure, which goes back to a point that was also made during the debate. I think she will listen carefully to the points made today and will wish to come back to the Chair of the Committee on that point about the statutory footing.

[Chris Bryant]

I kind of get that the Finance Committee is advisory, as is the Administration Committee, but the only gritty examination of the finances is done by my Committee. I previously sat on the Commission and it simply does not have the time to devote to finances because it deals with hundreds of other issues, so it would be in our long-term interests to change that pattern. Also indicative is the fact that not a single member of the Commission is here today. I have no beef with either the shadow Leader of the House or the Leader of the House. I know they are busy in shadow Cabinet and Government Cabinet. I fully understand that, but it is not great when not a single member of the Commission is here.

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting those points on the record today. It is helpful that this debate has taken place so that that can be done. I will absolutely make sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House responds and discusses the issues with him so that they get proper scrutiny.

On the question of how frequently the Committee has been able to meet and how frequently the debate has been able to take place, there is a general point about how quickly Select Committees can be set up in any new Parliament, and of course the Government wish to see that done as quickly as possible and would support promptness in that setting up. Again, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to look at that point.

There are two remaining points to deal with. One is that of Government pay scales being too restrictive to allow work to be done properly. I suspect that that sits in the discussions that need to take place on restoration and renewal rather than in this debate. Once again I will ensure that my right hon. Friend hears what has been said today. As a general point on the pay scales, they exist to try to get consistency across the public sector and value for money for the taxpayer, which are well understood and respected points. However, I hear what has been said today about the specialisms sometimes required in the work that needs to be done within restoration and renewal.

The hon. Member for Bristol South was very kind to acknowledge the good work done by the Major Projects Authority. I thank her for that and will pass it on to colleagues in my Department. She suggested that expertise could be shared and I will be happy to see what can be done on that.

On some other areas more generally that I know the Leader of the House would want me to touch on, the first is restoration and renewal. The Finance Committee’s report explains that the primary reason for the difference between this year’s and last year’s MTFP is because of the House’s decision earlier this year to support comprehensive restoration and renewal of the Palace. I know that the Leader of the House has been determined to get on with that job, and the Government published the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill in October, to give effect to the resolutions passed earlier this year.

The Bill will facilitate Parliament’s decision to set up a sponsor board and delivery authority to progress the comprehensive programme of works. It has been developed in close consultation with the House authorities and will, I hope, put in place the rigorous and transparent governance structure that we need to drive that work forward, while ensuring that we focus on value for money for the taxpayer. There cannot be a blank cheque for the work; the Government and Parliament agree that it must represent good value for money. We look forward to the report from the Joint Committee that is currently considering the draft Bill.

Following the work taken forward on a cross-party basis and led by the Leader of the House on bullying and harassment, the Government strongly welcome the provisions made, which are represented in the report, to support the introduction of the new independent complaints and grievance scheme. That is important to ensure better training, new human resources support and, crucially, the two new independent helplines and investigative services that underpin the new behaviour code. That is essential to ensure that we are supporting those who experience bullying or harassment, and to change the culture here in Westminster for the good, and for good.

I thank colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and emphasise just how useful it is for members of the commission and the Members Estimate Committee. Present or otherwise, I am sure that they will look at the debate carefully in Hansard. We can all agree that ensuring responsible and sustainable delivery of services for the House, while allowing for efficiency and value for money, is essential. I again thank the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I will ensure, as I have already undertaken, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is made aware of today’s contributions.

Youth Employment

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

They have improved dramatically, which is thanks largely to the Welsh Assembly Government and very little to the Government in Westminster—if we are going to get partisan.

There have been some important contributions to the debate. It is an enormous shame that we have lost the Minister who was here at the beginning. I gather he has gone off to Downing street, and we will discover later whether he has been promoted as much as he would like, but I wish him well. I say gently to the Government that it is naughty not only to shift responsibility for answering the debate, which was originally intended for the DWP, to another Department, but then, when we are three quarters of the way through, to hoik the Minister off to get some new employment—taking him out of a debate on those affected by youth unemployment when he does not look old enough to be out of that category. I have not even mentioned the Minister who is about to reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

[Chloe Smith]

On that point, I will spare the Minister’s blushes by saying that we all think young people should be in Government positions. However, I should also note that Backbench Business Committee officials asked me which Ministry I would prefer to respond to the debate, and I said it would be helpful for a Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to reply, because the debate is about employment, not unemployment.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, the Minister for Employment is in the Department for Work and Pensions. Be that as it may, let us get on to the matter in hand.

The truth is that the economy is improving and Opposition Members are as delighted about that as Government Members. I say that because many Opposition Members represent seats where what this country has suffered economically over the past few years is felt even more aggressively and painfully than it is in seats represented by Government Members. I know there are pockets of deprivation in every constituency in the land, but the honest truth is that many Opposition Members deal weekly and daily with multiple levels of deprivation, some historical and some new, so we know the pain. We are therefore delighted that the economy is improving, although I sometimes feel quite angry, and I think my constituents do too, when the Government seem complacent about the situation we are in.

The truth of the matter is that we still have the highest ever number of people in part-time employment who would like to be in full-time employment, many of them women. That is a significant challenge, because the issue then is how people in work pay the bills. Under this Government, for the first time ever the problem is that the majority of those living in poverty are people in work. That must be a cause of shame for all of us. Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I fully accept that the numbers have fallen, and they have fallen in my constituency. However, they reached an absolute peak last September, and there is still a considerable way to go. I will talk about that a little more later.

I am glad that we have a flexible labour market, but I often worry that the flexibility is all on the part of those who are employed, and that the employer can sometimes exploit that to such a degree that there is unfairness in the market. That means that whether someone is on a zero-hours contract without wanting to be, or is on an exclusive zero-hours contract, or does not have enough hours because the number they are given depends entirely on whether they get on with the boss rather than on a contract, their working conditions will be kept pretty miserable—let alone the problems of low pay.

At the moment some 853,000 young people aged 24 or under are unemployed. Although the figures have fallen, the ratio of young unemployed people to adult unemployed people is considerably higher in this country than for all our competitors. In the UK there are 3.6 young unemployed people for every unemployed adult; in the EU as a whole there are 2.4 and in Germany just 1.6 unemployed young people to every unemployed adult. Many hon. Members cite Spain and Greece, where youth unemployment is high, but we should not underestimate the problem in this country.

As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) who chairs the all-party group on youth unemployment—the recession in the UK has hit the young hardest. All the economic statistics show that they have had a harder time of it than anyone else, and today, although I do not suppose that anyone will notice because the great reshuffle will obscure it all, prices are still rising 2.5 times faster than wages. That has a dramatic effect on people who are on low wages, because they spend a far higher percentage of their wages on the basics of life such as eating and heating. In the past five years, the employment rate has fallen faster among 20-year-olds than any other age group. Real pay has also fallen fastest for the young. We must factor in housing costs and the state of the housing market. They were part of the problem in Spain and Greece: the housing market fell apart, contributing to high youth unemployment. Because of the cost of housing, young people have problems with personal social mobility and moving from parts of the country with no employment to places where there is employment.

We should never forget how those things affect people, including their long-term health. A young person who has been out of work for more than six months is twice as likely as anyone else to be taking antidepressants, and anyone who is out of work for six months or longer is six times more likely to have a mental health problem of some kind, which might make it difficult for them to get back into the labour market. People move further and further from the labour market. One of the most depressing statistics that I saw this year was from the Prince’s Trust Macquarie youth index, which suggested that 750,000 young people in this country said they had nothing to live for.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

I made it clear at the outset that the Government are seeking to address a slightly different and very well-defined problem. I do not have the years of experience of working as a lobbyist that the hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating I should have, but it is clear to me that a robust definition of “lobbying” is essential to the integrity of any register. The amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers suggest that they have struggled and ultimately failed to meet the prerequisite for successful lobbying regulation even on their own terms.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister clarify who is included and who is excluded? Can she confirm that in the case of News Corp trying to lobby on the full ownership of BSkyB, none of the senior executives from the company would be included in the register, none of the public affairs people employed full time by the company would be included, the legal company that it used to do much of its lobbying would not be included, and nor, for that matter, would the public affairs company be included, because most of the work that it does is general communications? According to this Bill, nobody would have been included in the register in that instance, which many thought was profoundly corrupt.

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman fails to take into account what this Government have done to ensure that Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ diaries are transparent and the reforms made since then to ensure that meetings and contacts with news editors are also reported. Labour did nothing about that in its 13 years. It is time that we did do something, and that is what we are bringing before the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to withdraw their lead amendment and the others that sit with it.

Amendments 9 and 48 on advice and meeting facilitation would alter the definition of lobbying provided by clause 2 so that it included the facilitation of meetings and provision of advice in relation to lobbying. Let me repeat that the Government have been clear that the register is intended to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and permanent secretaries. We want to ensure that that that level of information can be looked at by citizens, not by the Ministers and permanent secretaries themselves, whom I credit with enough wiles and wit to know who they are meeting.

The register is intended further to enhance transparency within the context of this far more open approach to government than has previously existed. The inclusion of the provision of advice in the definition of lobbying will not necessarily assist in the specific task that we are doing in this regard. I acknowledge that the work of many so-called lobbyists includes the provision of advice and the setting up of meetings, but once those meetings take place it is already clear to the public whose interests are being represented. I am therefore not persuaded of the value of extending the definition to the provision of advice, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw these amendments.

Amendments 8 and 27, which deal with in-house lobbying, would amend clause 2 to remove the term

“on behalf of another person”

from the definition of lobbying. I think that that is intended to bring with it the effect that the register be extended to apply to in-house lobbyists in addition to consultant lobbyists. As I have repeatedly reminded the Opposition and the Committee, the steps we have taken to enhance transparency at these previously opaque levels have already revealed the interaction between Ministers and external organisations. We proactively publish details of all Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings. It is therefore difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. It could merely duplicate the information that we already publish. Of course, we do publish that information. Will Opposition Front Benchers confirm in this debate what they have failed to confirm before—whether they would publish their own meetings and diaries? They have consistently failed to meet that challenge, and that is weak.

We have been clear, instead, that the register is intended further to extend the transparency we have introduced by addressing the specific problem in hand. The Opposition have failed to articulate what problem would be addressed by introducing a register of in-house lobbyists. Such a register may have been of use in relation to previous Administrations whose engagement with external organisations was less open, but it is not necessary now. The Canadian system, which does cover in-house lobbyists, costs about £3 million a year to operate. That system was deemed necessary because the Canadians do not publish details of Ministers’ meetings—but, quite simply, we do. As such, we have designed a register and made proposals accordingly. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment 52 would amend schedule 1 to remove the de minimis exemption that we included in paragraph 3 to exclude those who undertake only occasional lobbying from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. This is covered in Government amendments that I will deal with later. I acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this. I assure hon. Members that the Government are keen to listen to the concerns expressed by his Committee and others that the exemption in paragraph 3 would perhaps exclude large multidisciplinary firms. That was never our intention, and our amendment to the paragraph will clarify that. As amended, the exemption would exclude only those who happen to communicate with the Government in a manner incidental to their normal professional activities. Multidisciplinary firms that run consultant lobbying operations and lobby in a manner that is not incidental to their other activities will be required to register. I can therefore reassure hon. Members that the amended exemption provides a necessary and appropriate exclusion for those who undertake only incidental lobbying, but it would not be enjoyed by multidisciplinary firms with active and substantive consultant lobbying wings.

Let me turn to a pair of Opposition amendments that are in this group but, intriguingly, were not spoken about—amendments 25 and 26. They would entirely remove the exemption that we have included in paragraph 7 to ensure that the normal activity of altruistic organisations such as charities is excluded from the scope of the Bill. We all know, of course, that the Charities Commission already imposes strict rules governing how charities lobby, and there is also a specific and onerous regime governing charitable status. Despite that, the Opposition want to remove the exemption for bodies such as charities and require them to register. Interestingly, though, they are not seeking to remove the exemption for the normal activity of trade. The Opposition are thus proposing that charities register as professional lobbyists in relation to their normal activity, but that trade unions do not. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

New clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), closely resembles the proposals made by the various industry representative bodies. I have had some time to look into the detail of such proposals, and I would like to put on record a couple of the issues raised by such an approach. The new clause would redefine “consultant lobbying” such that the activity must take place in the course of business for the purpose of “influencing government” or

“advising others how to influence government”.

Under this definition, a huge number of individuals and organisations would be subject to the provisions relating to the register. Furthermore, the definition expands what is meant by consultant lobbying to include the provision of advice to others seeking to influence Government. I do not understand how the problem under discussion would be solved by requiring the registration of those who advise others—I have already addressed that point. If people are made more effective in communicating their messages, that is a matter for them. Of course, it must be made transparent to everybody who receives those communications who they represent, which is what the Bill seeks to address.

The new clause goes on to provide an exceptionally wide definition of those who would have to register. Anyone who attempts to influence, or provide advice on influencing, every level of government—local, central and devolved, parliamentarians and their staff, and public authorities—would be required to register. This includes those working in a charitable, not-for-profit capacity and those in a voluntary position. The new clause includes a number of exemptions and it would be worthwhile exploring them.

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for rising to make that point, which is valuable and is addressed by some of the amendments.

The Bill is straightforward about those who should be covered by our register. I repeat that we are being very specific about the transparency we are seeking to achieve. We regard Ministers and permanent secretaries as the key decision makers. I cannot state that much more simply.

New clause 5 brings to mind some unusual examples that we should consider in terms of public interest. A volunteer playgroup manager would have to register under the new clause if they wrote to their local authority about dog fouling near a church and requesting that it cleans it up. A charity that wants to inspire underprivileged children through sport would have to register in order to ask the mayor for permission to use a playing field. Furthermore, the founder of a small business who wants to write to their MP to complain that their waste collection is substandard would have to register as a lobbyist in order to do so. I do not think that those are good examples.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already and I must conclude, because there is plenty of work before the Committee tonight.

I have reservations about new clause 5, although I respect the serious work that Members have done with lobbying representatives. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans not to press new clause 5.

Amendment 161, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), would make all lobbying businesses, not just those that lobby on behalf of third parties, liable for registration. As I have said, it is difficult to appreciate what value a register of in-house lobbyists would provide. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Let me turn to the Government amendments in this group. It is clear that they have been spectacularly misunderstood by Labour Front Benchers. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who laughs loudest, claims to care for small businesses but appears not to have read the papers in preparation for this debate.

Amendments 76, 77, 81 to 85, 92 and 96 to 98 are designed to exclude the smallest organisations from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists. They do so by amending the definition of consultant lobbying such that it includes only those who are registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which I am sure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has read in great detail.

The Government are committed to ensuring that small businesses are not subject to disproportionate burdens. An exclusion for those small businesses that are not VAT registered from the requirement to register as consultant lobbyists will ensure that whatever burden may be associated with registration will not be placed on them. The VAT registration represents a clear threshold.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Smith]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Miss Chloe Smith]

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

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

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

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

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

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

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

Remuneration of EU Staff

Debate between Chris Bryant and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for an interesting and consensual exchange of views. The British Parliament has clearly said today that it believes that the Commission’s proposals to increase EU staff pay are unacceptable, and that they serve only to demonstrate how out of touch the institution is with the domestic challenges that we face. This shows how important it is to act in our national interest, financially and politically.

I shall do my best to respond to the questions that have been raised in the debate. If I leave out any details, I shall attempt to furnish colleagues with that information in other ways if they so wish. I shall respond first to some of the political points that have been made. It was suggested that the Prime Minister’s actions in looking after our national financial interests could have left the UK isolated in Europe, but it is clear to most Members that he has stood up for the UK’s national interests. Indeed, even President Sarkozy said last week at the Anglo-French summit that he might have acted in the same way. In contrast, the former Prime Minister gave up a large slice of our rebate, leaving us £2 billion a year worse off, as has been ably pointed out.

Several hon. Members have asked what action the Government will take to deliver on our tough stance. In the ongoing review of the staff regulations, we are seeking to deliver savings in a number of ways: first, by cutting the package of allowances for EU staff, especially the 16% expatriation allowance; secondly, by improving the affordability of EU pensions, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) will be pleased to hear; and thirdly, by adjusting the system for EU staff pay so that we can avoid higher pay in future. That adjustment involves a complicated method with which some colleagues will be familiar.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister has just nodded towards the hon. Member with the wonderful tie, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley)—

[Chris Bryant]

I think that his tie and mine are from the same shop. In fact, I know they are. The hon. Gentleman read out a long list of places where he thought there should be either no representation or minimal representation, including Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea has a high level of representation because it has the second largest rain forest in the world, and it is essential to climate change work. If the EU is to perform its work effectively, it needs representation there, and I hope that the Minister will not succumb to easy attacks.

[Miss Smith]

Nor will I succumb to interventions that could take us far beyond the scope of today’s debate. I know, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be particularly pleased to hear that the lobby that we have put in place to give effect to our tough stance has already had an effect. For example, the Commission, having been put under pressure, is preparing to reduce European Union staff levels by 5% between 2014 and 2020.

Returning to the actions taken in the past year to deliver the agenda for EU administrative spending, and to what we are doing on staff regulations reform, I can tell the House that the UK has been a signatory to two joint letters calling on the Commission to deliver “significant” savings in EU administrative spending over the next multi-annual financial framework. One was signed by 17 member states, and it represents a strong blocking minority, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—who has moved from his place—will be happy to note. He will be pleased to know that we intend to hold that strong blocking minority together as we press for more specific changes to the way in which the EU institutions work.

I refer hon. Members to two more letters, one of which is dated 20 February 2012 and deals with a plan for growth in Europe. It has been signed by 12 European Union leaders, and it talks about the effort that we must all make to put our national and international finances on a sustainable footing. In the second, dated 18 December 2010, our Prime Minister and those of four other countries state that the challenge to the European Union is not to spend more but to spend better.

A number of questions were asked about the cost of court cases. The costs of the 2009 court case were met from existing Council budgets, as per normal standards. However, it is clearly not ideal to deal with these matters through court cases. Clearly we need to seek deeper reform, and that is what we are endeavouring to do. I was asked whether we should distinguish between high and low-earning EU staff. Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about this today, notably in respect of the judiciary. EU officials fall into the category of highly paid officials, and we therefore think that they are a legitimate target for key financial savings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked whether the Government were taking a blocking minority on the 2010 EU budget discharge. I am afraid he is still not in his place to hear my answer, but I shall be happy to discuss it with him later. At ECOFIN today, the UK voted against that; it was not, in technical terms, a blocking minority.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) asked how the Commission could possibly not invoke this course of action, and said that the economic situation was patently a crisis. I know that he will welcome my agreeing with him on that. There is patently an economic crisis, and highly paid officials cannot be immune from that. I know that he will appreciate being reminded that the Delphic oracle talked about “nothing in excess”. I believe that that applies to EU salaries, and the House has eloquently agreed with me today.

Our debate today sends a clear signal that the Commission must take the challenge of modernising its institutions far more seriously and, most important, it must work harder to deliver efficiency savings in administration. Stopping an unjustified hike in EU staff pay is an obvious and good place to start, and our debate today sends a clear signal that we stand behind the principle outlined in the court case brought against the Commission for refusing to take action on the 2011 salary adjustment. Disputing higher staff pay in 2011 was not only the right thing to do; it also highlighted the fact that the current process is defunct and cannot adapt properly to difficult economic circumstances.