Draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I am grateful to whoever decided to include me in the Committee membership today. As the previous Minister for the constitution, I would like to pay tribute to my successor. She was also my predecessor. All Members will welcome her expertise in this particular area, and I know that she shares my passion and commitment to ensuring that looking at electoral registration and democratic participation should be a matter of social justice. It concerns all Members of the House.

Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of some women—those over the age of 30—winning the right to vote. It was not until 2 July 1928 that we achieved an equal franchise under Stanley Baldwin’s Government. I hope that we will also celebrate the passing of the Equal Franchise Act in which men and women were treated equally and with equal vigour. I wanted to give somebody a voice who is not able to speak in this Committee: Mehala Osborne herself. When I became a Minister in July 2016, I was advised to choose three things to focus on in terms of policy. One is never quite sure how long one is going to be a junior Minister. I focussed on looking at identity, at polling stations on the back of the Eric Pickles review, and at the access to elections review. I am particularly committed to ensuring that people with disabilities and sight impairment have an equal chance to vote.

I believe that 100 years on from the enactment of women’s suffrage, there are still people who, through no fault of their own, face barriers to voting, which means that we do not have 100% participation in our democracy. When Mehala Osborne wrote to me in July 2016, what leapt immediately and clearly off the page was that there was still a group of women who were unable to vote—again, through no fault of their own. If women in domestic violence refuges were on the electoral register, they would risk their security by making themselves known to their violent partners.

A system of anonymous registration had been set up by the previous Labour Government. Originally that was set up to protect the court orders themselves, but it is clear that times have moved on and we need to look at how to improve registration to make a difference for those women. There are 12,000 women in refuges, of whom only about 2,300 in England and Wales have registered anonymously. I know another Committee debated anonymous registration in Scotland, but even fewer women—only 43, I think—use the anonymous registration process there. That is simply because the barriers in the existing system are too great.

What incentive do people in a refuge have to travel across a local authority area to sign up to meet the director of social services so that she can countersign anonymous registration form needed to get a vote? In my area of Avon and Somerset, why would someone want to travel to Portishead to be able to meet with an inspector or chief inspector of constabulary to get him to countersign the form?

When looking at how to renew the legislation, it made sense to trust the refuge manager to sign the form. Why not trust a health professional? I am delighted that the Minister has been able to continue work on the legislation, because I made a commitment to Mehala Osborne that we would seek to introduce such a measure during the centenary year of women getting the right to vote. As a result of passing the draft regulations, all members of the Committee should be celebrating locally the fact that they as Members of Parliament have legislated to ensure that 10,000 women who want to vote, but have not been able to vote so far, will be able to do so.

I am sure we will still be able to make corrections to the process in future. For example, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood talked about the issue of registration every 12 months versus every five years. We have registration every five years for armed forces personnel at the moment, and that is something that can only be changed in primary legislation. I hope the Minister will consider that in future.

Mehala Osborne set up the campaign because she had wanted to vote in the Bristol mayoral elections but found she was unable to do so. It is right that women who have had their voice taken away from them by a violent partner should be given that opportunity to have their voice heard in our democratic process.

There is much more for the Government to do. Our democratic processes are often about inputs, outputs and the processes of registration itself—it is highly technical, as we can see from the rest of the SI. However, we need to focus on the outcomes and on what we want to achieve from electoral registration. When we look at local authorities registering those individuals, how can we ensure that performance targets are set for the local authorities, so that we double down and focus on those people whom we know are from certain demographics or in vulnerable situations to encourage participation?

I set up National Democracy Week for the week of 2 July this year to ensure that as a nation we can focus on the values of our democracy and registration. I hope that the Minister will participate in and take forward National Democracy Week. What we as legislators have done today in Committee is a great thing—we should all be proud of what has happened, but there is more to do. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

Prosperity Fund Annual Report 2016-17

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I wish to update the House on how the Government have been supporting poverty reduction and global and UK prosperity using the cross-Government Prosperity Fund (PF).

Details of the Prosperity Fund, its set-up, strategy, country and sector focus, and projects funded in 2016-17 are set out in the first annual report. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and has been published on gov.uk The publication of this first report reflects the Government’s commitment to transparency in the delivery of official development assistance.

The cross-Government Prosperity Fund replaced the FCO’s Prosperity Fund in April 2016, as part of a new, more strategic approach to promoting prosperity globally in line with National Security Council objectives. The Prime Minister announced the creation of the £1.3 billion cross-Government Prosperity Fund in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). This has since been revised to £1.2 billion following revisions to aid allocations.

The Prosperity Fund is a key element of the UK Aid Strategy 2015. Using primarily official development assistance (ODA) resources, the fund promotes economic reforms in developing countries which will contribute to a reduction in poverty. The fund supports global and UK prosperity by removing barriers to trade, building prosperity partnerships, and creating opportunities for business, including UK business. It enables the UK to deepen relationships in countries across the globe.

Parliamentary accountability for taxpayers’ money spent via the Prosperity Fund is provided primarily through the International Development Committee (IDC) Select Committee. The IDC Sub-Committee on ICAI (Independent Commission for Aid Impact) is planning to take evidence from ICAI and Prosperity Fund officials in December.

The Prosperity Fund spent £63 million, of which £5 million was non-ODA, in its first year across targeted project interventions, capability and capacity building, research and analysis and knowledge transfer. Projects focused on countries with stubborn development challenges and were designed to help inform an effective strategy for running larger multiyear programmes from 2017-18 onwards.

Projects are helping partner countries develop the business environment, infrastructure, healthcare, urban planning, financial services and low carbon energy they need to achieve inclusive and sustainable growth. Projects also consider opportunities for promoting gender equality and inclusion. The Fund is monitoring and evaluating progress against Sustainable Development Goal 5, to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”.

[HCWS385]

Government Accountability and Transparency

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account. Such online transparency is crucial accountability for delivering the best value for money, to cutting waste and inefficiency, and to ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way. Indeed, such data has allowed those working within central and local government to identify savings and stop excessive spending they did not otherwise know about.

The sunlight of transparency also acts in itself as an important check and balance, and helps ensure the highest standards of public life amongst elected representatives and officials. Alongside this, open data has great potential to deliver better public services through innovative uses of digital and mobile technology.

This moves away from more bureaucratic processes under previous Administrations, such as Public Service Agreements, Departmental Strategic Objectives and Comprehensive Performance Assessments, which were time consuming for public servants and opaque to the outside world.

Open data and transparency

Today a new webpage will go live on gov.uk that will, for the first time, bring together in one place a comprehensive list of the core transparency data published by all Government Departments, alongside details on how that data is prepared.

We have published new guidelines that clarify not only what core transparency data will be published by central Government and how frequently; but also how we will ensure it is available in the most usable format and is easy to find.

This new landing page and publication guidance will help people find and navigate the information they need more easily and reaffirms our commitment to continue to drive forward the transparency agenda.



This guidance represents the minimum requirements which are common to all central Government Departments: many Departments can and do go further.

Single Departmental plans

We are also publishing today a refreshed set of single Departmental plans across Government. These set out each Government Department’s objectives and how they will achieve them. Taken together, they show how departments are working to deliver the Government’s programme.

Single Departmental plans are important tools for transparency and accountability. They allow the public to track the Government’s progress and performance against a number of indicators. They also indicate which Ministers and senior officials are responsible for delivering each objective.

Ministerial accountability

Under the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises or could reasonably be perceived to arise between their Ministerial position and their private interests.

Today we are publishing an updated list of Ministers’ interests which captures those interests relevant to Ministers’ responsibilities; it should be read alongside the two Parliamentary registers.

We are also publishing an update report on “the handling of Ministers’ interest” from Sir Alex Allan, the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, alongside an updated list of Ministerial responsibilities and the regular quarterly disclosure of Ministers’ gifts, hospitality, overseas travel and meetings with external organisations.

The Government are also publishing agendas and the meeting notes of the first two meetings of the Co-ordination Committee between the Government and the DUP, as well as the terms of reference.

Diversity in public appointments

The Cabinet Office is also today publishing an action plan for improving the diversity of public appointments. Getting the balance right when making public appointments is a key part of ensuring we have public services which understand and respond to the needs of the population they serve.

In 2013, Government set an aspiration that 50% of new public appointments made each year should go to women. Good progress has been made—49% new appointments made in 2016-17 went to women.

However, up until now we have had very little data on the make-up of existing bodies. This report sets out the record of each department, and the steps we are taking to ensure public bodies accurately reflect the diversity of 21st Century Britain with a new strategy and new aspirations for increasing diversity in public appointments.

Transparency of senior officials and special advisers

Special advisers are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support. The Cabinet Office are today publishing the annual list of special advisers and their cost.

Special advisers are temporary civil servants. They represent 0.05% of the Civil Service pay bill. There are 88 special advisers across the whole of Government; the total Civil Service has 423,000 civil servants.

Departments are also publishing routine quarterly data on gifts and hospitality, received by special advisers, as well as information on meetings with senior media figures.

Alongside quarterly data on the travel and expenses of senior officials, the Government are also publishing today the transparency returns on senior public sector pay, as well as updated guidance on the controls for remuneration of senior civil servants and ministerial appointments to public bodies.

The Government will also shortly be publishing new figures on gender pay differentials across the Civil Service.

Copies of the associate documents are being placed in the Library of the House and will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS352]

Draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (amendment) Regulations 2017 Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017.

[Chris Skidmore]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

The purpose of the instruments is to modify provisions in the Representation of the People Act 2000 to enable the pilot scheme provisions to apply to combined authority elections and local mayoral elections. The provisions brought into effect in 2000 were used extensively in pilots in 2007. There has been no piloting of changes to the voting process for more than a decade, but new polls have been introduced to other local authority elections, namely elections for local Mayors and Mayors for combined authorities. However, the 2000 Act piloting provisions do not fully apply to the new polls.

Earlier this year, the Government announced that they would conduct pilots for voter identification at the local elections in May 2018 in line with their manifesto commitment to legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting. Voter ID is part of the Government’s commitment to improve the security and resilience of the electoral system that underpins our democracy, and will ensure that people have confidence in our democratic processes.

Five authorities have indicated their intention to run voter ID pilots in the local elections in May 2018, including Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Swindon and Watford. Tower Hamlets will also pilot new security features for postal voting. Watford and Tower Hamlets will be holding local mayoral elections in addition to their local council elections.

The powers to alter electoral conduct rules for the purpose of running pilots are contained within section 10 of the 2000 Act. Section 11 enables the Secretary of State to apply measures trialled in a pilot scheme generally, taking into account any report on the scheme provided by the Electoral Commission under section 10. The sections currently make provision to conduct the pilots in local authority and Greater London Authority elections.

As I have indicated, two of the local authorities that plan to conduct pilots in May 2018—Watford and Tower Hamlets—will also hold local authority mayoral elections on the same day. Those polls are normally held in combination for the benefit of both electors and administrators, and proposed changes will allow pilots to be conducted at both. That will ensure that voters have a smooth voting experience. It would be confusing for voters if the provisions were piloted at one poll but not the other on the same day. The changes will also facilitate the effective administration of the polls.

More generally, the statutory instruments we are considering will enable pilot scheme orders to be made that are intended to improve the voting experience for voters, and to make the electoral process more secure. The pilot schemes orders will also allow evidence to be collected for statutory evaluation by the Electoral Commission on the impact of voter ID in polling stations. That evidence and evaluation will inform the Government’s decision about how most successfully to meet their manifesto commitment and introduce voter ID nationally. No pilot schemes are planned for a combined authority mayoral election—elections for metro Mayors, as the media have termed them—but the order will facilitate any pilot scheme orders for combined authority mayoral elections in future.

For the record, I will describe the detail of the proposed changes. On the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, section 10 of the 2000 Act enables the Secretary of State, as I have explained, to make provision to run pilot schemes in relation to the conduct of local elections in England and Wales by order. Section 11 allows the Secretary of State to apply those changes generally. Currently, section 10 does not enable changes to be made to the conduct of rules for local mayoral elections.

Provisions in section 11 that enable measures tested in a pilot scheme to apply generally and on a permanent basis do not encompass conduct rules for local mayoral elections. When the mayoral rules were made in 2007, provision was made to apply sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 to mayoral elections. However, a further modification was needed to enable changes to be made to the mayoral election conduct rules, because they are made under the Local Government Act 2000. Sections 10 and 11 only enable changes to conduct rules to be made under that Act, which was a technical oversight. The regulations make those modifications so as to enable pilot scheme orders under section 10 of the RPA 2000 to make changes to the mayoral conduct rules. That will enable pilot scheme orders to be made that will facilitate, in the short term, voter ID pilots during local mayoral elections and, in the longer term, any other future pilot schemes.

Turning to the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017, similarly to local mayoral elections, sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 as currently drafted do not enable the conduct rules for combined authority mayoral elections to be modified. When the combined authorities mayoral order was made in 2017, provision was made to apply sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 to combined authority mayoral elections. However, a further modification was needed to enable changes to be made to the 2017 conduct rules, made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. That, again, was a technical oversight. The order makes those modifications to enable pilot scheme orders under section 10 of the RPA 2000 to make changes to the combined authority conduct rules for the purpose of conducting pilots.

We are also taking the opportunity to address a technical issue concerning subscription of candidates’ nomination papers at combined authority mayoral elections. The order will amend the definitions of “elector” and “local government elector” to clarify who may subscribe a nomination paper. A subscriber must be of voting age on the day of the poll and they must be on the local government register of electors on the last day for the publication of the notice of election, which must be published no later than 25 working days before polling day. It also includes new versions of the form of the nomination paper for use by candidates at a combined authority mayoral election as a consequence of the changes.

The provision for the combined authority mayoral elections did not contain the limitation of the register being the one produced by the last day for publication for the notice of election, which is the case for other polls. That meant that administrators had to check subscribers on the register both up to that date and beyond it, which opened up scope for confusion and error as that was unlike the position for other polls. The change brings the provision in line with that of other polls and thereby also supports more effective administration of polls held in combination. The amendments will make combined authority mayoral elections consistent with other polls on this issue as well as provide certainty to candidates and administrators as to whom they subscribe the nomination paper.

Our principal stakeholders, the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, have been consulted on these draft statutory instruments and are content. Furthermore, the stakeholders have expressed support for voter identification pilots in general. The Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission will undertake detailed evaluation of the pilots, after which the Government will announce the next step to implement voter ID nationally.

We consider, in summary, that these instruments are necessary for the conduct of electoral pilots in respect of local mayoral elections and combined authority mayoral elections and also make the law governing candidates’ nominations at combined authority mayoral elections consistent with other polls. I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I would like to start by thanking the hon. Lady for her remarks today. I want to put on record the admiration of all hon. Members for her having turned up despite not being very well and still managing to make a significant and important contribution. We all appreciate that as part of our democratic process.

I would like to put the Government’s comments on the record in response to the hon. Lady’s specific points. The changes to the order made during the general election period in June were to funding allocations, and many of them were necessary because of errors or inconsistencies in previous claims by returning officers that had been put into the funding allocations. By allowing that process to take place, we could ensure that they have effective and up-to-date funding.

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct that the law governing our elections is fragmented and complex. The Law Commission’s interim report was an important contribution that has had the wide support of the electoral community. As a Government, we are determined to work with the Law Commission on what can be introduced at this stage, given the restriction in primary legislation. As she will be aware, many of the laws governing electoral conduct are in primary legislation. On Monday, when I held the first electoral summit, which included representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Commission and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, I announced that we will be taking forward further work with the Law Commission, particularly on rationalising 25 statutory instruments on the conduct of elections into two single statutory instruments. We hope that that work can progress. While we are unable to move forward with primary legislation, we want to maintain the relationship and show the commitment of this Government to rationalising that complex tangled web of electoral law.

Regarding the pilot of voter identification at the poll, that is obviously a package of measures that was announced in the Government’s response to Eric Pickles’s report, “Securing the Ballot”. When it comes to considering electoral integrity, the identity pilots will form just one part of the Government’s overall package, which in future will also include legislation to look at postal vote harvesting, so that we can ensure there is confidence in the whole system. It is not just to do with identification at polls.

The hon. Lady also mentioned photographic ID. These pilots are determined to ensure that we have evidence-based policy making, so some of the pilots will be photographic, some will be non-photographic and some—for example from Watford, which has been mentioned as one of the mayoral authorities—will involve people bringing their polling card, which will have a barcode on it that will be scanned through. That may provide interesting opportunities for a marked register, which currently is a manual one, to show how people voted, and that would eventually be digitised from the bottom up.

There is a potential for innovation. We want to trial all these different methods, but I want to make assurances to the House, because I am obviously committed to democratic engagement, and I will be publishing a democratic engagement plan this month, looking at how we can ensure that those groups that are under registered have the right to vote. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of women getting a right to vote, and the 90th anniversary of women getting an equal right to vote. Our democracy is still a very young one, despite our being in the austere surroundings of this place, and we want to ensure that everyone gets that right to vote. If there is anyone who does not have the identification that is needed, there will be a significant communications campaign in advance to ensure that people are aware that they need to bring ID and if anyone does not have the required ID, certificates of identification will be able to be issued. I am assured that no one will be disenfranchised by these pilots. We will listen to the evaluation process from the Electoral Commission and it is right that we take this managed and staged approach to looking at how identification might work.

The hon. Lady mentioned the small number of cases of personation and electoral fraud. That is a debate that we have had in the main Chamber. Yes, the number of cases of electoral fraud that have been reported is relatively small—I think 1,974 cases were reported to the Electoral Commission between 2010 and 2016. But there is a broader point about the confidence in our electoral process. I want to put on record the comments of Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, who gave a seminal speech to the Institute for Government on 6 December in which he stated that

“there is a persistent and widespread perception of a significant level of fraud. More than one third of respondents to our surveys after the 2017 general election thought some fraud had taken place, and less than half believed that there were sufficient safeguards to prevent it.”

The Electoral Commission has recommended that solely photographic ID should be used. As I said, the Government wish to trial various forms of ID. The Electoral Commission made the case that photographic ID has been used in Northern Ireland since 2003. Sir John Holmes went on to state in his 6 December speech:

“This has some public support—when asked what single measure would be most effective in preventing electoral fraud, 52% of voters polled in 2016 said ‘a requirement to show photo ID at a polling station’.”

I agree with the Electoral Commission and Sir John Holmes: we must always act ahead of the curve on electoral fraud and electoral integrity to safeguard our electoral process.

Sir John Holmes also stated:

“We want to address this before it becomes a problem, and part of a wider reduction of trust in the system. It does not seem unreasonable to demand proof of identity before voting, if we have to do so simply to collect a parcel, for example. It is certainly something which many other countries do routinely.”

With that in mind, the Government are piloting measures that are proportionate and fair and will be fully evaluated as part of the process of bringing forward our manifesto commitment on identification at polling stations. However, they will not be taken alone: other measures will be taken to address issues with electoral integrity and postal voting. The Government do that not to disenfranchise people or to restrict voting rights, but to ensure that the voices of the vulnerable are protected, that every elector has an equal right to vote and, above all, that no one’s vote is stolen from them.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT COMBINED AUTHORITIES (MAYORAL ELECTIONS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2017

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017.—(Chris Skidmore.)

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. I shall attempt to keep my remarks within the time limit handed down by the Chair, at least 20 minutes ago.

As a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have been in the privileged position of being able to talk, both formally and informally, with constitutional and political experts about many things, including clause 11. As part of the process of formulating our latest report, the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I travelled to Edinburgh and took evidence from panels of experts over two days. It was an enlightening and informative experience.

Under clause 11, a potential 111 powers that could be devolved to Scotland will be held at Westminster until such time as the UK Parliament sees fit to devolve them. The UK Government’s stance is, “Trust us; we’ll do the right thing.” And trust them we have over the years: we trusted them to deliver the Calman report but they did not; we trusted them to deliver on the Smith commission but they did not; we looked to the Sewel convention and we saw right through it; and we listened to, and were influenced by, a vow that was not a vow.

In September 2014, the then Prime Minster David Cameron told us that we were a “family of nations”. We were told that Scotland could lead, not that the Government would attempt to put a lead on Scotland, but every amendment requested by SNP MPs, who were democratically elected to represent the citizens of Scotland, was voted down. When we voted to stay in the EU, our views were ignored. When we asked to sit at the table during the negotiations, we were snubbed. I can assure the Minister that the words “the cheque is in the post” and the promise that you will respect me in the morning will not work any more.

I am well aware of the cold, hard fact that the UK Government do not have to do anything, but Scotland is not a faithful hunting dog standing at its master’s heel, waiting on its orders. Scotland in the Union is a concept rooted in the past. The ties that bind us come from, in part, a shared history—a history of conflict and conquest—but the sun set on the empire a long time ago. It might come as a surprise to some, but 59 colonies have walked away from the empire and, as a new dawn rises, so does Scotland. We want a different future from the one set out for us, but Scotland cannot choose its own future when we have to seek permission to do so.

Clause 11 does not set out a timetable for transition. Professors Richard Rawlings and Alan Page have both raised concerns that clause 11 is described as a transition agreement, but that there is no provision for that in the Bill. Despite that, we are currently designing our Scotland. Civic Scotland, combined with academia and business, is already coming together to design the country we want to live in. Discussions in think-tanks and at public meetings about the Scotland we want to be are common occurrences. There is a growing awareness that Scotland, with the right powers, can reform our energy business, banking sector, and agriculture and fishing industries.

We could even negotiate our own trade deals, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands do. The Faroe Islands negotiate their own trade deals because the Danish Government respect and trust them. We could each define our own future and still be trading partners and valued neighbours, while continuing to help and support each other, but only if that is achieved through mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty. And there is the rub: clause 11 shows no respect or trust for Scotland or any of the devolved authorities.

Dr Tobias Lock, a senior lecturer at Edinburgh Law School, has said:

“The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will result in a shift in balance between the powers Westminster has in practice and the powers Holyrood has in practice with Westminster’s powers being augmented and Holyrood's staying the same.”

That concern is shared by Professor Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh. She identifies that clause 11 is fundamentally a problem of trust. The UK Government do not trust the devolved Governments to refrain from using repatriated powers to create policy and regulatory divergence that might harm the UK’s internal market and create problems in trade negotiations. This, she argues, overlooks the considerable constitutional authority that the UK Parliament already retains over market regulation, trade, and the making and implementation of international treaties. For their part, the Scottish and Welsh Governments do not trust the commitment of the UK Government to devolve repatriated powers after Brexit and/or to agree and govern UK common frameworks on a genuinely co-operative basis. Once the existing imbalance has been augmented, when will it be realigned?

Scotland, if given the right powers, could negotiate with the European economic area and European Free Trade Association to seek what is best for Scotland but not detrimental to the rest of the UK. However, we are hamstrung by a UK Government who are scared of their own shadow, constantly looking over their shoulder and wondering from where the next challenge or crisis will emerge. We have a UK Government propped up by bluster and buffoonery.

Individuals may be protected by personal wealth that generates self-confidence and self-assurance, and supports a “devil may care” attitude—one that nudges us forward, assuring us that it will be all right on the night—but the vast majority of people in the UK are less well protected from the economic turmoil that lies ahead. They have concerns about jobs, pensions and visas. They have rightly turned to the UK Government time and again for reassurance, but their concerns are not being addressed. All that has been offered is a sickly mix of jingoistic imperialism. The Scottish Government wish to bring clarity and seek the powers to govern responsibly, but clause 11 does not provide that authority or opportunity. It must be amended forthwith, and the powers due to the Scottish Parliament—powers that will be best used by the Scottish Government, in the best interests of the citizens of Scotland—must be repatriated to the Scottish Parliament immediately after the UK leaves the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I rise to support clause 11 and schedule 3. Let me say at the outset how grateful I am to all Members for their contributions to the six-hour debate that we have had so far today, and for the thoughtful consideration that has been given to this part of the Bill. I assure the Committee that I shall listen carefully to, and take very seriously, all the views that are expressed on these issues.

The Government have been clear about the fact that the Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. That applies equally, and without exception, to people in businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 11 is about delivering certainty while guaranteeing all the existing powers of the devolved institutions. The current devolution settlements reflect the UK’s membership of the EU, and on that basis, they provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate in a way that is incompatible with EU law.

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him so early in his speech. Many members of his own party have said that clause 11 is deficient and requires amendment. Does he believe that, and, if so, how does he intend to amend it to make it less deficient?

[Chris Skidmore]

I will set out the Government’s position in due course during my speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman intervened within 30 seconds of the beginning of my speech, and he is not accepting the answer that I have barely been able to give. I hope he will appreciate that I have a speech about the amendments to get through. When it comes to the clause itself, however, we are interested in the views of all Members and all devolved Administrations, and, above all, we are seeking a legislative consent motion. We are determined to approach the clause with a view to consensus.

As I was saying, the current devolution settlements provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate in a way that is incompatible with EU law. That has provided common, overarching laws and approaches throughout the UK while we have been in the EU. Those common approaches and laws have meant that businesses, regardless of where they are based in the United Kingdom, can trade with each other in the knowledge that they share agreed standards.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is making an important point about businesses being able to trade. Given the amendments that we have been discussing and the importance of consultation with the devolved Administrations, will the Minister tell me whether the proposals that were put forward in Brussels today on the Northern Ireland-Irish border were discussed with the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland or, indeed, Northern Ireland?

[Chris Skidmore]

It is not for me to comment, during a Committee stage, on the process of European negotiations. There is a time and a place for that. I am not going to get into a discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the process of EU negotiations. We must ensure that the Prime Minister has the opportunity to reach out to Brussels, but I am here to discuss clause 11 and schedule 3 and the amendments, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue to do so.

I was talking about the common approaches that enable us to trade with each other in the knowledge that we share agreed standards. We have agreed approaches on how to manage our common resources, and the UK can enter into international agreements knowing that we, as a country, can meet our obligations. As we leave the EU, the simple question is about where we need to retain the common approaches in EU law and where we do not. In the immediate term, clause 11 and part 1 of schedule 3 create a mechanism for those common approaches to continue to apply throughout the UK after exit.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister speaks of common approaches across the EU. We have heard today about the possibility of an alignment between the Northern Irish arrangements and those of the Republic and the rest of the EU. How will we retain those common approaches if, for instance, the UK negotiates a new trade deal post-customs union, and we end up with circumstances in which that would, or would not, apply to Northern Ireland? How on earth can the Minister reconcile that with the offer that the Government have been talking about today?

[Chris Skidmore]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber. He is welcome to make a speech later on setting out his own principles; I would listen to that very carefully. I am addressing clause 11 and schedule 3 to the Bill. There is a time and a place for the wider discussions he wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

On the temporary nature of these proposals, why have the Government not chosen just to put in place a sunset clause? Why is no date indicated, because the lack of one creates an enormous amount of uncertainty for everyone?

[Chris Skidmore]

The issue around placing a sunset clause on this provision is that, in a way, it creates an artificial cliff edge. The sole purpose of clause 11 is to ensure that the UK statute book is complete on exit day. We want to ensure that we work towards common frameworks, and that we can ensure that, when we have that statute book prepared for exit day, we have common frameworks and non-common frameworks in place. Having a sunset clause creates an artificial cliff edge to work towards that date, whereas we might want to create some of those frameworks before that date, and there might need to be some corrections to the withdrawal agreement and the EU withdrawal agreement Bill that has been announced, and some deficiencies that need to be corrected. Having a sunset clause is therefore unhelpful for the purposes of this clause in itself.

Returning to the issue of the policy areas where EU law intersects with devolved competence, as I have said, common frameworks will not always be required, or can be achieved through non-legislative means like concordats, and in such cases clause 11 provides a mechanism to release decision-making powers from the temporary competence arrangement through the Order in Council procedure, giving new powers to the devolved Administrations.

[Pete Wishart]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech, but I am not hearing much about addressing the concerns of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, which are clearly saying that what is being proposed drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. How on earth is the Minister going to take on board their real concerns about what this Bill does to devolution, not least through clause 11?

[Chris Skidmore]

I have listened for six hours to the concerns of Members, but outside this Chamber there is an entire process that I want to touch on later in my speech, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect upon. There might be hostility in this Chamber from those who say that the Government are somehow taking clause 11 and ripping up the devolution settlement, but that is hyperbole. Clause 11 is a temporary competence limit that is being applied simply by taking EU law and it becoming EU retained law.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, not at the moment.

There are no powers that the devolved Administrations currently have that they will be losing. We have therefore had tremendous engagement on the framework that we are delivering, and I will touch on that engagement shortly. In particular, in the JMC (EN) process there has been huge good will from the colleagues of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in the Scottish Government, and his officials, above all, working tirelessly behind the scenes, trying to deliver on what we need to do.

[Chris Elmore]

The Minister uses the word “temporary”. How long is temporary, and why is that not specified in the Bill?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman points to the word “temporary”, and I repeat that this is a temporary competence limit—[Interruption.] He wants to know how long temporary is. It is as long as it takes to ensure that we have a complete statute book that is in the interests of continuity, certainty and control for UK businesses. We want to ensure that we have time to be able to correct the statute book and ensure that this is done properly. To create an artificial time limit would be unhelpful to this process. As he knows, the First Minister of Wales is going forward with the JMC (EN) process. That engagement is taking place, and I will talk about that later in my speech. This means that when it comes to ensuring that we have the temporary competence limit on the face of the Bill, the Order in Council process gives new—

[Mike Gapes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, I have given way a lot—[Interruption.] I am going to carry on with my speech; otherwise I will not get through it. Other Members want to speak, and although I could stand here and take up all the rest of the time, I think it would be inappropriate to do so.

The Order in Council procedure will provide an opportunity for those powers to be returned to the devolved Administrations. This highlights a well-established procedure for adapting the parameters of the devolved competence, which requires debate and approval in the UK Parliament and the relevant devolved legislatures. It is absolutely right that the devolved legislatures are able to debate and consider any additional areas of competence being released to them through this mechanism. Of course we acknowledge that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have taken a different view on the mechanism to provide the necessary certainty, but we are in agreement that common frameworks will be needed in some areas. In some cases, legislative frameworks might be required, and we hope to continue working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to establish exactly what those will look like.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I am puzzled. The Minister has made it clear that the Government’s intention is to maintain the current legislative situation, so far as the clause is concerned. Why then did he not seek agreement with the Welsh and Scottish Governments before he brought this legislation to the Chamber? Why did he not achieve a resolved position before coming to the Chamber with the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the clock is ticking, and that we have a limited amount of time in which to ensure that our statute book is prepared for exit day. We are determined to do that, because we need that certainty, control and stability. Businesses need to know that the statute book will be complete on exit day.

We have had a tremendous amount of engagement with our Welsh and Scottish partners, and I am perfectly happy to place in the Library records of the meetings between the First Secretary of State and his counterparts so that Members can see the level of engagement involved. I think that they would be quite struck by the number of meetings that have taken place and the work that has gone on behind the scenes. Members might be hostile in the Chamber today, but their Welsh and Scottish counterparts are working constructively with the UK Government because they recognise that we need some serious politics here and that we need to ensure that we have certainty and control for businesses.

[Ian C. Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, only once for each person. I will give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).

[Dr Whitford]

Why will having a Brexit date give certainty and clarity, yet having a date on which the powers would move to the devolved Governments is considered unacceptable?

[Chris Skidmore]

We will be discussing the clause 10 powers to which the hon. Lady refers on a separate day—on the morning of day five. Clause 11 is about ensuring that the statute book is prepared for exit day. In a way, exit day provides that temporary limit. We know that we need to make changes to the common framework, but beyond that, we do not yet know what the negotiation period will look like when it comes to ensuring that we need an implementation period. That is why we cannot necessarily provide that certainty.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Skidmore]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) now.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Clause 11(3) refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Is the position for Scotland and Wales the same in the Bill as it is for Northern Ireland, given that the Good Friday agreement is underpinned by an international treaty between two countries and that it explicitly mentions the European Union?

[Chris Skidmore]

We are moving on to some of the clause 10 issues around international obligations, but when it comes to schedule 3, which I had hoped to touch upon later in my speech, we are determined to ensure that we obtain legislative consent from all the relevant devolved Administrations. Although the Assembly is absent, we are already working with officials in Northern Ireland to ensure that their perspective is reflected, but we are determined to move forward as the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the Minister envisage requesting the legislative consent motions before explaining what amendments the Government are going to make to the Bill?

[Chris Skidmore]

As I have stated, the Government’s intention is to seek legislative consent for the Bill from all the devolved Administrations, where possible. We have already seen legislative consent memorandums being tabled in Scotland and Wales, and we are determined to ensure that we work with all our devolved partners and with officials in Northern Ireland and that we legislate on behalf of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Leslie]

When?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am going to carry on with my speech. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened and now he decides to—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions. If the Minister wants to give way, he will give way.

[Chris Skidmore]

We have been working closely with the devolved Administrations on these questions and will continue to do so, progressing the discussions and the necessary analysis of where common approaches are and are not needed, through ongoing bilateral and multilateral discussions between Ministers and officials.

In an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) highlighted the important progress that was made at the recent JMC (EN) meeting on 16 October, when the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agreed to a set of principles to identify where we will need frameworks. Given the myth busting that needs to take place around the JMC (EN) process and given how open and transparent it already is, it may be appropriate to quote from a communiqué regarding an agreement by all the devolved Governments and the First Secretary of State on the definition and principles of the common frameworks. It states:

“As the UK leaves the European Union, the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures. A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed. This may consist of common goals, minimum or maximum standards, harmonisation, limits on action, or mutual recognition, depending on the policy area and the objectives being pursued. Frameworks may be implemented by legislation, by executive action, by memorandums of understanding, or by other means depending on the context in which the framework is intended to operate.”

The communiqué then goes on to set out some important principles for where common frameworks

“will be established where they are necessary in order to: enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence; ensure compliance with international obligations”.

[Jenny Chapman]

I may be able to save the Minister a job here. New clause 64 includes what he is reading out, word for word. Given that he supports the principles, is he not inclined to accept new clause 64?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Lady did not touch on the communiqué and seemed to push it to one side without acknowledging the importance of the process. When the JMC (EN) process is taking place, her new clause is unnecessary. I will touch on why it is unnecessary to legislate when we have all this work ongoing to provide flexibility for the devolved Administrations to draw up a communiqué exactly like this one.

To carry on with what I was saying, common frameworks will

“enable the management of common resources; administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; safeguard the security of the UK.”

The frameworks will also

“respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore: be based on established conventions and practices, including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not normally be adjusted without their consent; maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules; lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers for the devolved administrations.”

In the absence of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers, the Northern Ireland civil service will continue to be part of these discussions. We are building on the positive and constructive joint working between our Administrations to continue to accelerate our progress on common approaches. For example, there is ongoing work between officials from the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on how policy areas intersect with the devolution settlement. There have been several deep dives into those policy areas, and the work will be presented at the next JMC (EN) on 12 December, where we hope to make further progress by assessing more of the detailed work that has been carried out.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

How does the UK Government’s approach to working together with the devolved Administrations differ from their approach to working together with, say, Dublin and the other members of the EU27? Is one not a meeting of equals and the other a meeting of master and underling?

[Chris Skidmore]

The work on the common frameworks that clause 11 addresses points to the fact that we are keenly working with the devolved Administrations on drawing up those frameworks. We have an absolute commitment to ensuring that we can look at the principles that were agreed between our Governments on 16 October and that explicitly recognise that frameworks will not be needed in many of the areas currently governed by EU law.

As we have said from the outset, the Bill starts a process that will lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers. That is not a power grab. We are ensuring that more powers go back to the devolved Administrations and legislatures.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about the constructive relationship with the devolved Administrations. Has he taken time to look at what they have said about the shambles today?

[Chris Skidmore]

A bit of a wasted intervention. I am here to talk about clause 11. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the clause, but he came in slightly late.

[Wes Streeting]

I came for your speech.

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but we are discussing the effect of clause 11 and schedule 3 —that is the purpose of Committee.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Skidmore]

I have already given way.

We want to build momentum over the coming months in the continued bilateral and multilateral discussions between Ministers and officials. Let me be clear that the Government are the party committed to devolution. Our record shows that, and we will continue to press on with devolution. Working through these frameworks is part of that, but we also want to protect the benefits of our Union across the UK and across each of our constituent nations, benefiting us all.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Skidmore]

No.

I am grateful to hon. Members for raising important points of detail on the ongoing framework process. They are right to acknowledge that work has been done today on agreeing the guiding principles for the future frameworks, and that the further analysis is the product of the ongoing engagement between officials and Ministers in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Of course, the outcomes of those discussions are important not just to Governments but, most crucially, to the people and businesses across the UK to whom the rules apply.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about the impact on people in the UK. Under the Good Friday agreement, people in Northern Ireland can choose to be British or Irish, or both. Will that remain the case after Brexit? If so, seeing as Ireland remains a member of the EU, will people in Northern Ireland still be able to choose to be EU citizens?

[Chris Skidmore]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady says. It is important to note that, when it comes to the common frameworks procedure, the communiqué agreed on 16 October states:

“Frameworks will ensure recognition of the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland and that Northern Ireland will be the only part of the UK that shares a land frontier with the EU. They will also adhere to the Belfast Agreement.”

By way of myth busting, it is not the case whatsoever that the Good Friday agreement will somehow be affected.

Clause 11 introduces part 1 of schedule 3, which makes the same provisions in relation to devolved Executive competence—that is, any secondary legislation that the devolved Administrations might make. In addition, provisions in the Bill extend competence to the devolved Administrations so that devolved Ministers can exercise the powers provided by clause 10 and schedule 2 to make the statute book operate effectively once we have left the EU.

In recognition of the current standing of the existing devolution settlements, part 2 of schedule 3 ensures that a significant number of corrections are made to the devolution statutes arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. Together, clause 11 and schedule 3 preserve the current scope of devolved competence. They ensure that any decision that could have been taken by the devolved Administrations and legislatures prior to exit day can still be made after exit day, and that devolved Ministers can exercise powers to make sure that law in areas of devolved competence works correctly. They set up the Order-in-Council process, which will allow for an increase in decision-making powers of the devolved institutions as discussions with the devolved Administrations on common frameworks progress. The Government have repeatedly stated, as I have today, that this is a temporary arrangement; it is a safeguard against a cliff-edge situation as we leave the EU to provide certainty for people and businesses in all parts of the UK. Just as importantly, it allows time for discussion about the future: on where common approaches are needed and where they are not. It is our overriding aim to work with the devolved Administrations to define which areas need frameworks and which do not as soon as possible.

It was absolutely right for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in the debate on clause 2 to raise the matter of consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland in the absence of a power-sharing Executive. I would like to reassure her that this Government value the views of those parties on the devolution provisions in the Bill, and officials have provided briefings on the Bill to each of the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly that wanted them. In addition, officials have been engaging with their counterparts in the Northern Ireland civil service on the technical and legal aspects of the Bill to make sure it operates properly in the context of Northern Ireland law. That is, of course, no substitute for a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to prioritise the talks between parties to restore the power-sharing Executive. This Government are sincere in their wish to discuss these matters, particularly with regard to common frameworks, with the Northern Ireland Executive when they are restored.

I reiterate that I welcome scrutiny by the House on the approach the Government have taken. I also welcome the vital contributions that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and the devolved legislatures, have made to today’s debate by publishing their views on how—

[Ian Murray]

I feel that the Minister may be finishing his remarks. I intervened at the beginning of his speech to ask whether he would tell us where he thinks clause 11 is deficient, as many of his colleagues have said it is, and how he thinks that, as the Minister responsible for it, he is going to fix those deficiencies.

[Chris Skidmore]

As I stated at the opening of my remarks, and as I will state throughout my speech and at the end of my remarks, we are open to hearing from those who seriously want to look at this Bill and consider how we productively ensure that our statute book is complete on exit day. We are in a Committee stage at the moment and there is a process to go through here, and there is a process outside this House in the JMC, which I have spoken about. It is not for me as a Minister to prejudge the discussions that may take place at JMC (EN) next week, on 12 December. What I will say is that I will ensure that when it comes to the agenda of that meeting, the discussions that have taken place in Committee are reflected and discussed in JMC (EN).

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for what he is saying, but it is clear that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, and Members of this House working with them, have proposed clear and specific amendments that are not about blocking the Bill or undoing Brexit; they are about retaining a stable constitutional settlement in these islands. Will he accept those amendments, as his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland said he might?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am discussing whether the clause should stand part of the Bill and I am about to turn to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. I hope that he can wait in eager anticipation for my remarks and that he will not be disappointed, although he may be.

I reiterate that I welcome scrutiny by the House on the approach that the Government have taken. As I said, I also welcome the vital contributions the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and devolved legislatures have made in this debate by publishing their views on how devolution aspects of the Bill might be improved. This Government are clear that we want to consider all those views and make improvements to the Bill where we can, but I also emphasise that it is right that we provide certainty across the UK, as this clause seeks to do, and do not take any action to undermine the integrity of our United Kingdom.

I will also take a moment to reflect on the insightful contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), informed by the evidence to and input from the members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He made a number of pertinent points and I will turn to those now. He is right to say that leaving the EU is that opportunity to revisit some key constitutional questions. As I have set out today, the Government’s aim in introducing clause 11 is to do precisely that: to give us time to give these important issues the consideration they deserve.

We welcome the views of experts such as my hon. Friend and his Committee on these issues of intergovernmental institutional relationships. The Government are ensuring that we engage with other external experts such as leading academics on these questions. What we are focused on today is how we provide that certainty and continuity we need in the law on exit day and how we give ourselves time to consider the issues properly and reach the right answers. I welcome my hon. Friend’s continued contributions to this discussion.

New clause 64, which relates to the creation of common frameworks, comprise three subsections and I will take each in turn. First, the new clause would require the Government to lay their proposals for the replacement of European frameworks with UK ones before each House of Parliament. It is not the position of the UK Government, or of the devolved Administrations, that the existing UK frameworks will be replaced by our own common frameworks in every instance. Instead, we expect more power to sit directly with the devolved Administrations as a result of our leaving the EU.

As I mentioned earlier, we are working closely with the devolved Administrations to determine where future frameworks, whether legislative or non-legislative, will be required in each of the policy areas in question. Although joint conclusions have not been drawn at this point—as I have stated, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the discussions with the devolved Administrations—we believe that the majority of policy areas will not require legislative frameworks.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Surely the determination is very simple. It is set down in the Scotland Act 1998 that what is not reserved is devolved, so if it comes from Europe, it will be devolved. It is set down and it is simple. It should not be up to the Minister to be judge and jury. He talks about partnership, but he should respect the law.

[Chris Skidmore]

As I set out clearly at the beginning of my speech, when current EU law—which it is the UK’s position not to breach—is transferred to become retained EU law, we need to look at the areas where we need to create common frameworks. That is the position that the hon. Gentleman’s own Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, has taken. Mike Russell signed the communiqué and agreed to look at these common approaches and to look at retained EU law being transferred across.

The hon. Gentleman should speak to members of the Scottish Government, because they seem to understand the need to work with the UK Government to come up with common frameworks. He seems to be unaware of the process of engagement that is taking place outside the House. His constituents will not thank him for bringing up constitutional points and not acknowledging that, in looking at the common frameworks procedure and at EU law, we need to ensure that, when it comes to exit day, there is certainty, control and stability in respect of our statute book. We need to ensure that clause 11 provides for that.

Should our detailed discussions conclude that UK-wide or parallel legislation is necessary, both Houses of Parliament will of course have an important role to play in scrutinising the detailed proposals. Where policy areas are released from the temporary arrangements provided for in clause 11, the Order in Council process provides a mechanism to do precisely that to ensure that these decisions are subject to careful scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament and the relevant devolved legislatures.

Secondly, the new clause would permit the establishment of frameworks only where the criteria set out in it are met. That is also unnecessary. Although I agree with the criteria, which, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) pointed out, have been lifted by and large from the broader principles that underpin the creation of frameworks, they form only one part of the picture. The broader principles were agreed by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments at the meeting of the JMC (EN) on 16 October and were published in the communiqué that I have put on the record. To ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland were heard, a senior official from the Northern Ireland civil service was in attendance.

Those broader principles recognise, among other things, the importance of a wider range of issues, including

“the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland”.

Not only do we have an established set of detailed principles; we have put those principles into practice through a process of ongoing engagement and analysis with the devolved Administrations on where common frameworks are or are not needed. It therefore follows that the more limited set of criteria in the new clause is unnecessary.

Finally, the new clause would permit the creation of frameworks only if they were subject to consultation agreements with the affected devolved Administrations. Once again, that is unnecessary. As the agreed principles published in the communiqué make clear:

“It will be the aim of all parties to agree where there is a need for common frameworks and the content of them.”

The Government are committed to intensive discussions on the areas where common frameworks will and will not be required with the devolved Administrations, and those are happening right now. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Darlington to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 65 seeks to enshrine the Joint Ministerial Committee in legislation. The Joint Ministerial Committee is a forum for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss matters of joint interest and is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the four Administrations. Specifically, it provides for a focus of intergovernmental relations and allows attending Ministers to present the positions of their own Administration in a multilateral setting. There is no need to enshrine the JMC provisions in legislation as set out in new clause 65. Indeed, doing so would place limitations on the ability of the members to adapt to what is a rapidly changing political landscape.

The current basis for the JMC has been agreed by all four Administrations and allows for wide-ranging discussions, including on topical issues such as EU exit. The JMC, as set out by the written agreements, must remain adaptable enough to address those four Governments’ interests. If this clause were to be added to the statute book, it could severely hamper the JMC’s ability to do so.

The scope of the committee and its supporting sub-committees is not solely to discuss the domestic impact of EU exit and negotiations with the EU. The JMC plenary, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, should also continue to discuss matters agreed by the Administrations as set out by the terms of reference under subsection (1) (a). As drafted, new clause 65 would significantly limit the scope of the Joint Ministerial Committee. The provisions under subsection (1) are already being demonstrated through the JMC on EU negotiations sub-committee. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State chaired the most recent JMC (EN) meeting on 16 October and will chair a further meeting on 12 December to build on those discussions that have taken place so far.

There are also other sub-committees that are equally important for the integrity of intergovernmental relations. The provisions under subsection (5) stipulate that either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union must chair all further meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee until a withdrawal agreement is concluded. That would ignore the role of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State who chairs what I am sure will be recognised as an important sub-committee on EU negotiations as well as other sub-committees of the JMC that already exist, such as the sub-committee on Europe. Such provisions will remove the flexibility afforded to the Joint Ministerial Committee to adapt and evolve.

The existing written agreements coupled with the ongoing multilateral and bilateral engagement between Ministers and officials make this new clause redundant. The versatility of the committee is achieved through consensus of the participating Administrations and therefore we urge the Opposition not to press their amendment.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about co-operation and listening. Our party represents the Government of Scotland. Then there is the party that represents the Government of Wales. In this spirit of co-operation, which amendments will he be taking from either of those parties?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am currently going through the list of amendments and setting out the Government’s position on them. When it comes to looking at the Bill, the Government will listen to those who seek to improve it constructively. We are in Committee at the moment, and we have amendments and legislative consent memorandums that have been tabled by the Welsh and the Scottish Governments. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and I have been to Scotland to give evidence. My hon. Friend has also given evidence to Welsh Select Committees. We are determined that it is not just SNP Members who have a veto over this process. There is a consensus that we need to seek across all devolved Administrations—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Chris Skidmore]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times; I will not do so again.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Skidmore]

No, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman came in relatively late. I have given way to him several times. I am making my point in response to the amendment, which he does not even want to listen to. The point is that there is a reasonableness test: the UK Government are determined to be the reasonable partner, but we will listen to anyone who puts forward amendments to the Bill and who is determined to ensure that our statute book is protected on exit day, that the UK integral internal market is protected, and that we have that stability, certainty and control that we need for businesses and for the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, as they will not thank us if we do not work together to ensure that that is achieved. The point of clause 11 is to ensure that we have that stability, certainty and control.

I now turn to amendment 337, which is to be read with amendment 42 and new clause 64. It provides that existing EU law limits on devolved competence will remain in place until the end of the transitional period. At that point, amendment 42 would give the devolved Administrations and legislatures the power to legislate in relation to those matters currently subject to EU law but that are otherwise devolved.

I will discuss amendments 90 to 92, 132 to 134 and 164, which essentially provide the same effect as that of 42, which means that the devolved institutions will be able to diverge from those retained EU law frameworks after exit day. I will also deal with consequential amendments 177 to 179, 181, 185 and 191 to 193, which flow from those substantive amendments. I understand the intention behind these amendments, but we cannot agree with the effects. I have already set out the measures in clause 11 that establish the temporary arrangement that maintains the currents parameters of devolved competence, taking no decision-making power away from the devolved Administrations or legislatures. This means that where we have common approaches across the UK by virtue of EU law, they will continue to apply as they currently do after exit day.

It is vital that we provide certainty to businesses and to people who live and work across the UK, and that laws in place remain consistent while we work with the devolved Administrations to consider where we may need common approaches and where we do not. The amendments risk undermining not only that certainty, but out precious Union. Let me be clear: this Government are committed to ensuring that power sits closer to the people than ever before. Our commitment to strengthening the devolution settlements is clear from the statute book with, most recently, the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016, which has made the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.

In line with our commitment to devolution, we have been clear that we expect the process of leaving the EU to result in a significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations. But we are also clear about how this must happen. We need careful analysis with the devolved Administrations to determine the areas where common UK-wide or GB-wide approaches need to be retained, and the areas where they do not.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is addressing the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said that he agreed with the principles of my amendments 164 and 165, and that, although he would not vote for them, he expected that the Government would come back with something different to deal with the deficiencies in clause 11. I have not quite heard the Minister admit that the clause has deficiencies. What will he bring back to the Committee that it can vote on that will satisfy his own Scottish Conservative Members with regard to the principles of amendments 164 and 165?

[Chris Skidmore]

I have already stated that the Government are prepared to listen to all those who seek to improve the Bill. We will use this opportunity to reflect on all the speeches made by hon. Members in Committee; that is what Committee is for. I have stated a commitment to ensuring that the content of today’s debate is shared with all members of the JMC (EN) on 12 December. There is a process to look at the establishment of common frameworks, and the careful analysis needs to take place with the consent of or working with the devolved Administrations and their officials. I am pleased that we have made good progress on this with the agreement at JMC (EN) with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the principles that will guide our future framework discussions.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. My name is on a number of these amendments. Will he be absolutely clear on one point? The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have tabled amendments in good faith that are aimed at being constructive and making the Bill more sensible, with the support of many Members across the Committee. Indeed, Members of the Minister’s own party have pointed out problems with the Bill. Am I correct that, despite those points, he is not going to accept any of the amendments?

[Chris Skidmore]

We have always made it clear that we stand ready to listen to those who offer improvements to the Bill. Engagement at all levels of government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to what I have to say. He wants me to accept an amendment; I have given way several times, yet he is not prepared to listen to what the Minister has to say. Engagement at all levels of government is a usual part of the process, and this engagement must be at all levels of discussion, not just that which takes place in this Chamber. We want to work with the devolved Administrations, and we have been clear that we would like all parts of the UK to come together in support of this legislation, which is crucial for delivering the outcome of the referendum.

We continue to believe that the provisions in clause 11 are vital to providing the necessary immediate certainty to people and businesses while we discuss where common frameworks are and are not needed. We recognise that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have taken different positions from our approach, and we welcome the contribution to the debate. We remain open to suggestions and thoughts about how to ensure that the Bill works to deliver a functioning statute book for all parts of the UK. However, we cannot accept changes that would undermine the UK’s internal market or increase difficulties for people and businesses.

We are also clear how this process must happen. As I have said, we need the analyses to take place. We are clear that we will make progress with the JMC (EN), and that we will ensure that our final analysis indicates that legislative frameworks will be unnecessary for a majority of those policy areas. Following the agreement of the principles of the JMC (EN), we have already commenced work with the devolved Administrations, building on the work that is taking place at both ministerial and official level to make quick progress on the potential role for frameworks in some specific policies areas including agriculture, justice, home affairs and public health, where deep dives have taken place with officials from all Administrations. This work is allowing us to explore the different form the frameworks could take.

I should say that a legislative framework is by no means the only method. Indeed, as I said, legislative frameworks are likely to be used in a limited number of areas. There is far more use for non-legislative frameworks, including memorandums of understanding, concordats and informal collaborative working arrangements, as already happens.

In removing clause 11, these amendments fail to recognise the importance and value of our internal market and of having consistent rules for individuals and companies. They pre-empt the vital work we are undertaking with the devolved Administrations, and prejudge the outcome of our negotiations with the EU. Until we know the outcome of those negotiations, we cannot have certainty over how these powers, in places, will relate to our future relationship with the EU or, therefore, at what level they should be exercised in the future.

I note that Members have referred to evidence given to various Committees. I have heard their points, but it is important to come back to the motivation and need for the Bill: to provide certainty and control.

Sir Stephen Laws, formerly first parliamentary counsel, has pointed out that the devolution settlements were agreed in the context of our EU membership. That is why we are focusing through our discussions on common frameworks with the devolved Administrations on what our constitutional arrangements should be outside the context of our EU membership. That is what the provisions in the Bill give us the space to do, by maintaining the parameters of devolved competence.

I stress again that the mechanism here is not an end; it is an important first step in the process of returning these powers from the EU to the UK, enabling us to do the necessary work to determine where further powers can be released to the devolved Administrations.

I must reiterate that I understand the intention behind the amendments—that powers sit at the right level once we have left the EU. I am clear that the process we are going through does not change our unshakeable commitment to ensure that devolution in the UK is even further strengthened so that we may have more devolution and more union across the UK.

I turn now to amendment 165, which I will take with consequential amendments 180, 182 to 191, 194 and 195, tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Amendment 165 would allow the Scottish and Welsh Governments to make secondary legislation to change retained EU law in the areas that are currently subject to EU law. Taken together with other provisions of the Bill, part 1 of schedule 3 is intended to maintain the common frameworks across the UK that have been created by EU law. In particular, that will ensure that no new barriers to people living and doing business across the UK are created after we leave the EU.

As I have made clear, the Bill guarantees that the current decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations are respected. Anything the devolved Administrations could do before exit day they will be able to do after exit day. Our priority must now be to prepare our statute book for exit, and we want to work closely with the devolved Administrations to do that.

It is through the work on the common frameworks and the discussions with the devolved Administrations that we can make progress on specific areas and seize the opportunities to improve policy in the UK. As I mentioned earlier, the next JMC (EN) is scheduled to take place on 12 December, and it will continue that accelerated process of assessing where frameworks are needed and where they are not. We will prioritise those areas of greatest interest and significance.

We very much hope to see further steps forward, but it is right that we do these things in discussion and collaboratively with all Governments across the UK. Once it has been agreed through ongoing engagement, which this Government are committed to, where common frameworks are not required, we can use the Order in Council power to release decision-making powers to devolved Administrations. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary, and we would urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it.

Let me turn now to amendment 72, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), which would enshrine a requirement for the Government to seek a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures. As the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, said on day one of Committee stage, we want to make a positive case in favour of legislative consent for this vital piece of legislation and to work closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures to achieve that. As I have mentioned, there has been an extensive programme of engagement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and legislatures. In the absence of the Executive in Northern Ireland, official level engagement also continues with the Northern Ireland civil service.

We do not recognise the need for this amendment. The Government have already explicitly recognised the role of the Sewel convention in the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016. I ask hon. Members to look at our track record: we are committed to the devolution settlements and the conventions that we have established.

We continue to believe in the importance of the Bill, which is in the national interest, and we will work to deliver it with the devolved Administrations. The question of ensuring certainty both for our statute book and our internal market when we leave the EU is of great significance to all parts of the UK. We would like all parts of the UK to come together in support of this legislation, which is vital to the securing of a smooth and orderly exit. I urge the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was going to reassure the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who is no longer in the Chamber, that, given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing other than be reasonable and mild mannered in my presentation. He seemed fearful that SNP Members would go berserk and worried that we were putting our case with too much passion. Let me try to put this as reasonably as I can.

I want to agree with Members who have talked about the positive cross-party nature of what is happening. There are three parties on the Opposition side of the House that differ quite significantly on our preferred constitutional outcome or endgame for Scotland, but we are united in trying to defend the gains of devolution that have been made during the past 20 years. Indeed, I think that some of the Scottish Tories might feel that way too, given the discussions we have had in the Scottish Affairs Committee. They seem too timorous to exercise that conviction by going through the Lobby with us tonight, but perhaps they will be persuaded in the fullness of time.

By way of context, we need to remember two things. One is how the interplay between the referendums of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland affects this debate. I was on the losing side in 2014—I lost the Scottish independence campaign—and I accept that result. However, it is important in understanding why Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom to look at some of the assurances that were given by the people who won that campaign, because that affects this debate. I am going to talk not about the obvious one, which is what was said about EU membership itself, but about two other things.

First, all parties that campaigned for a no vote in the 2014 referendum went out of their way to stress that there was no threat to the devolution settlement, and that they would defend and extend it. The other assurance given was that should Scotland vote to remain in a political Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, this was not a matter of one country being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but the creation of a partnership of equals—a multinational yet unitary state—with the views of Scotland therefore respected in any future debates. I am now calling to collect from this Government on both their respect for and commitment to devolution because, as far as I can see, the way in which clause 11 is currently written means that it recognises neither of those points. It is regrettable that at this relatively advanced stage of our discussions on the Bill, we still do not have any agreement whatsoever about some basic things.

The other factor we need to remember by way of context is of course the debate about devolution itself. I was heavily involved in the campaign that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, arguing for yes, yes in 1997. I was not in the House when Members debated the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, but I observed the proceedings and we can read the transcripts. We know that Parliament, led by the late Donald Dewar, clearly took a maximalist position. It basically said that everything should be devolved unless there was a case for its not being so, which is why the 1998 Act lists not the powers that are devolved, but the powers that are reserved.

If we had not been in the European Union when Parliament was debating the Act, how many of the 111 areas of responsibility would have been reserved and how many would have been devolved to the Scottish Government? The truth is that practically all of them would have been devolved without question, because there would have been no compelling case for reserving them. I think that people misunderstand the nature of the debate when they talk about the transfer of competences from the EU to the UK following Brexit.

Let us be quite clear that the reason why the European Union currently has some legislative competence in devolved areas is to ensure compliance with the treaty on European Union. That is what this is about. If Brexit goes ahead and we come out of the European Union, that, de facto, will not be required, so whatever the UK Government say about taking on these areas of competence, it will not be about complying with the terms of the treaty on European Union. The only thing it can be about, given that we already have a single economy in the United Kingdom, is convergence on policy. The transfer raises the possibility that we will move from compliance with international agreements to compliance with domestic policy. That is what I mean by a power grab, because it represents a severe potential constraint on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate and act in its devolved areas.

Ministers will say, “That’s not the intention. This is a drop-off point for the powers so that we can then decide the best way for them to go to their final resting place.” I have to say to them that we are politicians, not psychics. We have to deal with what is written in the Bill that they have brought before us, not their intentions for what might happen as they go towards their endgame. What is written in the Bill is most clearly not what is being argued for by Ministers. If that were the case, we would have a schedule by now outlining which of the 111 powers can go straight to the devolved authorities on exit day, which of them definitely need to be reserved in the context of the 1998 Act, and which of them need further exploration through some sort of process, but we have heard nothing about a single one of them.

I say to Ministers that, even from a public relations point of view, would it not have been sensible to at least chuck a few of these powers the way of the devolved Administrations? No. 9 on the list is about blood safety. What is it about the Scottish health service and blood transfusion service that they do not trust? Why on earth would blood safety need to be reserved to the UK? Energy efficiency is another power on the list. Is it the end of the world if Scotland pioneers aspects of efficient energy use and perhaps leads the way in the UK? How is that a threat to the Union? Why do Ministers need to keep those powers? There are other examples that illustrate the ridiculousness of arguing that there should be even a temporary drop-off of these powers at Westminster. Such powers should clearly go to the devolved Administrations.

I am left wondering why this is being done. The obvious first answer is the phenomenal degree of administrative competence involved. I think that there is malintent on the part of some Conservative Members, but probably not on the part of its Front Benchers. However, I think Ministers have got themselves into a situation in which, because they have been incapable of producing a plan, they simply have no option but to say, “Trust us for now; we’ll do the best thing in the end.” It is very difficult for this Parliament to accept those assurances.

I think there is another red herring with the idea that a further reason why these powers need to be retained and examined further is that there might otherwise be interference with the United Kingdom’s ability to strut the post-Brexit globe in its ambition for “Empire 2.0”. There is a fearfulness that people in Scotland or Wales might act like the Wallonians and try to frustrate the creation of an international trade agreement. How ridiculous is that? Would it really matter if the Scottish Government introduced a policy that said, “We don’t wish to have genetically modified food in our food chain”? How is that a threat to an international trade agreement? All that would need to be done would be simply to specify that that was what people would need to deal with in Scotland, and that anybody wishing to sign the agreement would, quite reasonably, be able to do so.

The only way that that could become a threat to post-Brexit deals would be if there was a suggestion that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly should take to themselves a power to veto a future UK international trade agreement, but no such power is being discussed. It is ridiculous that we should not by now be discussing which powers are going where, rather than arguing that nothing can be done apart from a power grab by the Westminster Government.

Finally, the common frameworks that we need for these 111 areas are going to be entirely different, depending on the individual area. In some cases, it might just be a simple matter of agencies north and south of the border talking to each other and sharing best practice. There are probably very few areas that actually require a full-blown statutory regulatory framework across the United Kingdom.

[Chris Skidmore]

indicated assent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

indicated assent.

Voter Registration: Nottingham North

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful that you are presiding over this debate, because you too take a personal interest in electoral matters and I am sure you enjoyed the contribution from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) as much as I did.

It is striking that although we sit on opposite sides of the political divide, I agree with much in the hon. Gentleman’s speech on electoral registration being a matter of social justice. I will touch on that later, but I am determined that, as a Government, we will look at the burning injustice for those people who are unable to access the ballot box for whatever reason. Next year, it will be 100 years since women got the right to vote, but now many people do not vote because they do not wish to—that is their freedom—although many people who want to vote will still be unable to do so. I will talk about what the Government have been doing and intend to do to improve access to registration and, therefore, to our elections.

The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his predecessor Graham Allen. In July 2016, two days into my job as a Minister, I was here in Westminster Hall to respond to Mr Allen’s debate on the issue of a constitutional convention. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is following in the proud footsteps of his predecessor by taking up the matter of voter registration. It is incredibly important for that issue to be raised in the House and I thank him for securing the debate. As is evident from his recent parliamentary question to the Cabinet Office, which he mentioned, electoral registration is of interest to him, and I commend him for that.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the issue of data. To consider what we do and do not know, at the moment we do not have the accurate data to be able to track movements of people within certain locations. I am passionate about changing the nature of the electoral registration conversation from focusing only on top-line national issues.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Missing Millions” report, which I commend for highlighting the number of people missing from the register, but what we do not know is who those missing millions are and whether they are all actually missing or have gone off and registered in a different location. I am absolutely determined for us in the Government to do the work on the much finer-grained detail to achieve a more accurate picture of where we need to focus our resources. I will talk about that in connection with our democratic engagement programme for the future.

We need to move away from the national conversations on voter registration and talk about democratic inclusion versus democratic exclusion and where the democratically excluded are. The hon. Gentleman mentioned certain target groups that had traditionally under-registered and were under-represented, such as home movers. He mentioned the Electoral Commission report that highlighted the number of renters who are not on the electoral register. For me, one of the most significant statistics is that only 28% of renters join the electoral register in their first year of moving into a property. We are looking at trying to tackle that churn.

I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in his passion for automatic voter registration. I am equally passionate about the system of individual electoral registration, which is here to stay. More than £70 million has been invested in putting the system in place and in enabling the successful transition to individual electoral registration. At the core of that system is the conviction that individuals should own their own registration status. When it comes to our democracy, voting and registration, I am a passionate believer in voting being not only a right but a responsibility. Gone are the days of the old head-of-the-household system, in which one individual registered numerous others; now it is the right and responsibility of each and every individual to decide when and where they want to be registered.

Individual electoral registration has proved not only more responsive to the needs of electors, but a success in making the system more robust and in driving up the accuracy of the electoral registers. The Electoral Commission report on the 1 December 2016 registers provides the best and most recent full assessment of the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers across Great Britain.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister may be wedded to individual registration, but will he not accept that there are some groups he needs to work much harder with? That might be those who have poor language skills or learning disabilities. They might want to register but find the process difficult. Will he commit to put in extra measures to ensure that those people who want to vote but find the existing process difficult can access it effectively?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Lady is clearly as passionate about this issue as I am—only last week, she asked a question during Cabinet Office questions. As a Government, we are absolutely determined to ensure that by the next general election in 2022 we will have made our elections the most accessible ever. Clearly, 100 years on from women getting the right to vote, there are still those who are unable to vote. We want to be able to change that. Looking at the whole process—the journey through our democracy—from registration through to turning up at the polling station, we need to do more.

We had a call for evidence, and 260 people have responded so far. In the spring, we will publish a report on actions the Government intend to take forward. I have already managed to make certain changes—for example, with the certificate for visual impairment—on data held at NHS level. Last year, there was a consultation. I wrote to the Health Minister to make the case that that data should be shared with local authorities and electoral registration officers, so that when a certificate exists for those who are blind or visually impaired, it should be possible to use it to contact people in the local authority area, perhaps with forms in Braille—although it is not frequently used nowadays, and it is important to keep up with the technology when it comes to access to elections—or large print. It is about establishing who the vulnerable people are who need the extra effort and attention.

Again, it is about data and about ensuring from an early position that we can act as a Government. I agree entirely with the hon. Lady that we need extra investment in those certain groups, but we also need knowledge of those under-registered groups. We have run a knowledge and capability review to try to understand people’s needs. Since becoming a Minister, I have been touring every area and region of the country to try to understand the needs of the most vulnerable.

When it comes to individual electoral registration, the completeness of the register is stable at around 85%, but its accuracy has now increased to 91%. There is more to do. I share the hon. Gentleman’s vision of having as complete and accurate a register as possible, although I perhaps disagree about the methods to achieve that. Since 2014, 30 million people have registered to vote using the IER system, and 75% of those did so online. During this year’s general election, nearly three quarters of the 2.9 million applications were made using the register to vote website. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the fact that electors across Nottingham have engaged with this new system, mirroring the trend we have seen nationally. Since 2014, 197,042 applications to register to vote have been submitted to Nottingham City Council—79,314 of those were from 16 to 24 year- olds—and 24,978 applications were submitted to Nottingham City Council ahead of the 2017 general election, from 18 April to 22 May.

The hon. Gentleman also touched on the issue of duplicate registrations, which the Association of Electoral Administrators has raised with me. In a way, that problem is part of the success of the register to vote website—the opportunity and flexibility that it gives to individuals to register—and the side effect is duplicate applications. At the 2017 general election, we added a page to the website that said that if people were already registered with their local authority they would still be on the register, which we believe screened about 5% of applications. However, as a Government we are determined to look at the issue. I am not convinced that a centralised database is necessarily the way forward, but we are continuing our work and we want to work closely with the AEA and the Electoral Commission on those barriers.

I addressed the AEA conference in Brighton earlier this year and I committed the Cabinet Office to holding an annual electoral summit, which will take place on 11 December, with representatives from the AEA and from the Electoral Commission, so that we can plan out the registration and democratic engagement strategies for several years. We are launching a democratic engagement programme, which will be published this side of Christmas. It is the first Government electoral engagement strategy and we are determined to ensure that, rather than focus on electoral events, when money is invested suddenly in the run-up to an election, we can plan across a five-year cycle where we need to focus our attention to help the most vulnerable people and to drive up the completeness and accuracy of the register. I will be delighted to share that work with the hon. Gentleman when it is published and to have a separate meeting to talk him through the Government’s plans.

As part of my tour, I visited the British Chinese Project in Nottingham, and I attended a round table with electoral service managers in Gedling. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate to have passionate electoral service managers in his local area who do good work. I learned a lot from my conversations with them, which I hope will be reflected in the strategy.

On the annual canvass, again, we do not disagree in principle. The annual canvass is a 20th century process—an analogue system in a digital age. We have already seen the modernisation of IER and the register to vote website, but the annual canvass process is in the past and it needs to catch up. It is a significant cost for local authorities, of between £60 million and £65 million. I am determined to try to enable permanent change to reform that system, but what does permanent change look like?

I am determined that we make measured and evaluated changes to the annual canvass that do not risk upsetting the existing system, so that when it comes to preserving the completeness and accuracy of the registers, we do not move simply from one system to another. That is why we established a pilot process. We had three pilot areas in 2016 and we have 24 across the UK in 2017. All the pilots are being evaluated by the Electoral Commission and that evaluation has to be published by the end of 2018, I think. I am determined that we go forward with permanent change to the annual canvass. The pilots so far have tried to give local authorities greater flexibility over the canvassing process.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the endless number of letters that can go back and forth, the paper that is wasted in that communication process and the canvass itself, which can cost £1 for every door knocked on. Legislation may require people to return to a particular address, on occasion up to nine times. Although the canvass procedures are in primary legislation and we are looking to make changes to that, we will shortly lay a statutory instrument that will aim to make further improvements to the registration process within the existing canvass, and which will be debated early next January. The hon. Gentleman might want to speak to Labour Whips or the Committee of Selection because we would be delighted to have him on the Committee to continue these discussions.

The statutory instrument will aim to make further improvements to the registration process by streamlining the deletions process and rationalising correspondence that electors receive in the registration process. The same statutory instrument will also seek to improve the anonymous registration system to ensure that it is accessible to those escaping domestic abuse who need to register in such a way.

The hon. Lady mentioned vulnerable groups; one of the vulnerable groups that I have been determined to help, particularly in view of next year’s 100th anniversary of women getting the right to vote, is those women who are survivors of domestic violence and who might be residing in refuges, who are unable to register to vote without risking their identity being revealed. They have to sign up to an anonymous registration system by going to either a director of social services or a chief constable of police. We will lower that attestation process to domestic refuge managers. There are 12,000 women in domestic violence refuges, but only about 2,300 women use the anonymous registration scheme. I hope that for the May elections we can demonstrate that change and give those women back their voice in the democratic process.

I passionately believe that voting is more than just a cross on a ballot paper. Voting is the end point: there is a process by which we need to re-engage communities, but there are some people who might not want to engage in the electoral registration process to begin with. How do we work with organisations such as the British Chinese Project, which I mentioned and which sees the low levels of literacy among first generation Chinese people, for instance? How do we engage people to make them understand that that registration process and having their say are equally important and vital for them to take part in our democracy?

I am determined to look at that, through reflecting on the democratic society. There are civil society organisations and groups that do a fantastic job helping to register vulnerable people. One of my first visits was to Birmingham, where I met Uprising—a charity that went around with tablets to help people to register to vote.

What can we do as a Government to try to engage those groups with the wider community and to try to provide them with opportunities? I have announced the first National Democracy Week, which will take place next year on the 90th anniversary of the Equal Franchise Act. When we think about our democracy, we think of Magna Carta and parliamentary sovereignty, and think of ours as being one of the oldest democracies in the world, but it is remarkable that it has been just 90 years since women got the equal right to vote.

In celebration of that moment, I want to set out a week’s programme, and the hon. Gentleman will be more than welcome to involve the people of Nottingham. I want to make sure that events take place across the country. How can we ensure that we look at the state of our democracy 90 years on from the Equal Franchise Act and what can we do over the next 10 years, to 2028, to ensure that we have as complete and accurate a register as possible?

There are other events taking place next year, including the suffrage celebrations, with £5 million set out for that. A key part of it will be investment in education and democratic participation. The week before last, I met the National Citizen Service to look at engagement models for young people.

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that although we differ on the point of principle, it is a point of principle. I understand that hon. Members feel passionately about automatic electoral registration. I believe that individual electoral registration is here to stay, but in that context we are determined to ensure that we register as many people as possible. This is a social justice issue and we will publish our democratic engagement plan shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to ensure the accessibility of voter registration.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

The Government are currently considering the 256 responses to our call for evidence on the accessibility of voter registration and voting. I will soon lay draft legislation to improve the accessibility of the anonymous registration scheme for survivors of domestic violence, and I recently implemented the findings of an accessibility review on the “Register to vote” website.

[Lilian Greenwood]

A 2014 survey by Mencap found that 60% of people with a learning disability found the process of registering to vote too difficult. Registration forms are often complicated and not accompanied by an easy read guide. The Electoral Commission report, “Elections for everyone”, published earlier this month, agrees and calls on the Minister to act. Will he commit to improving the Government’s online registration process, and will he ensure that every local authority provides easy read information and a good helpline, so that no one with a learning disability is disenfranchised?

[Chris Skidmore]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the report by Mencap, which has been working closely with the Cabinet Office and is a member of the “accessibility to elections” working group. I do not disagree with the premise of her question: we need to do more, in the 21st century, to make sure that our elections are accessible for everyone and that we remove barriers for those who are disabled. I am absolutely committed to doing that. It is right that we now consider all the responses and we will publish our report later next year.

[Grahame Morris]

Millions of people are missing from the electoral registers, but there are high levels of support for reforming our electoral registration system—in particular, for automatic voter registration when a person receives their national insurance number. When will the Government implement the necessary reforms to ensure that our democracy works for the many, not just the few?

[Chris Skidmore]

We believe that we need a democracy that works for everyone, which is why we are determined to introduce a democratic engagement strategy, which will be published in December. When it comes to those on the electoral register, a record 46.8 million people are now registered to vote. Actually, since the introduction of individual electoral registration, 30 million people have registered to vote, 75% of them using the online system. That is a remarkable success.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

What measures are the Government taking to make sure that people do not vote twice in general elections?

[Chris Skidmore]

Any form of electoral fraud will be taken extremely seriously by this Government. We have already stated that we intend to implement a number of recommendations made by Sir Eric Pickles’s report, “Securing the ballot”. Double voting is obviously a crime and we encourage anyone who has evidence of it to report it to the police. I recently met the Electoral Commission and the National Police Chiefs Council, and we will meet every six months to look at a strategy for tackling double voting. By introducing future reforms to postal voting, we hope that we will be able combat the issue.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Electoral Commission estimates that some 40% of those who applied late to vote through the online system were actually duplicate registrations. Will my hon. Friend make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication of applications? That would also minimise bureaucracy.

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The registration website has been incredibly successful: there were nearly 3 million applications to register at the last general election. Of course, there will be people who register having been registered locally already. There are local solutions to the issue. Local authorities such as Hackney have a look-up tool, and it is right that we explore further what solutions there may be, but I believe that a centralised database may be too costly.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

According to figures published by the Electoral Commission, nearly 11,000 people tried to vote on 8 June but found that they were not registered to vote once they reached the polling station. Will the Government examine the use of Government data to place electors on the roll automatically and pilot the idea of polling day voter registration to ensure that every eligible voter is entitled to vote?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government sincerely believe in the principle of individual elector registration; we will not be returning to automatic voter registration. We want a register that is complete and accurate as possible. I am delighted that the Electoral Commission has demonstrated in a recent report that the accuracy of the register has risen from 87% to 91%.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

5. What progress the Government has made on tackling electoral fraud.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

We are committed to providing a clear and secure democracy, and we continue to work with local authorities to deliver voter identification pilots for the May 2018 local elections in areas such as Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Watford and Tower Hamlets, as part of our programme to strengthen electoral integrity.

[Matt Warman]

Many people believe that online voting may have potential for the future. What is the Minister’s assessment of online voting in the light of allegations of Russian electoral hacking?

[Chris Skidmore]

I believe that the UK electoral system is one of the most robust in the world. It is difficult to manipulate through a cyber-attack, as we operate a manual counting and manual voting system. As the First Secretary mentioned in his earlier answer, that may be seen as old-fashioned, but it ensures that our system is protected and our democracy safeguarded.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Government consider using credit reference agency data to improve the accuracy of the electoral register?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will be interested to go away and consider. We are already looking at issues of tenant security deposits, for example—one of the largest groups not on the register are movers and renters, which causes that churn. That is why we are determined to ensure that we have better data to identify where we need to focus our attention and ensure that everyone is able to register to vote.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Is the Minister aware that at the general election in June, there was a 300% increase in proxy votes in the Foyle constituency, resulting in Sinn Féin winning the seat by 169 votes? Many people are specifically saying that that was a clear case of electoral fraud and the theft of a constituency in this House. What will the Minister do to ensure that that does not happen again?

[Chris Skidmore]

On the general principle of electoral fraud, it is absolutely right that we look at future measures to tackle electoral integrity. It is important that we should have confidence in our democratic system going forward. We will be looking at absent voting arrangements and postal vote harvesting, and we will introduce legislation in future to tackle these issues.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T2. As we leave the European Union, public appointments will become more important than ever. What are the Government doing to make sure that we get a greater diversity of people appointed to public posts, especially from outside the south-east?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

The Government are committed to having greater diversity on the boards of public bodies so that they better represent the public they serve, and that includes moving public bodies out of London when appropriate. We will shortly publish a diversity action plan that will focus on encouraging candidates from the widest range of backgrounds, including from outside London.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. The Minister is in charge of cyber-security. He knows that the Prime Minister is worried about Russian interference in our political system, so could he assure the House that the Russians have not already seen the Budget secrets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T7. Cambridge Assessment, which manages the University of Cambridge’s three exam boards, is not-for-profit and world leading, yet it faces unfair competition from private exam boards that are not subject to freedom of information rules. Why will the Government not extend transparency to all providers of public services?

[Chris Skidmore]

I recognise the individual case. The hon. Gentleman has written a letter to me on this matter and I hope he has received my response. The Government obviously update freedom of information arrangements regularly, so we will keep this matter in mind. There is a consultation on various points in the freedom of information code, which the hon. Gentleman is welcome to be involved in.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Ministers, like me, are absolutely passionate about making sure that people get to the ballot, whether at parish, town or district level. Do Ministers agree that it is really important that we continue to have polling cards at every election so that everyone can play their part in the electoral process?

[Chris Skidmore]

As I have said, the Government are committed to ensuring that as many people are engaged in the democratic process as possible, and this includes ensuring electors are equipped with the information they need to vote. As a result, we have no plans to change the current arrangements for poll cards.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

T8. The gender pay gap is growing in a quarter of Government bodies. How is this setting the rest of the country an example?

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I am grateful to you for chairing this debate so efficiently, Mr Howarth. I am also grateful that so many Members have taken part and given such passionate contributions to this debate. I am delighted that the spirits moved certain Members and that they decided to make last-minute contributions, which were all the more welcome. I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) for standing in at the last moment on the shadow Front Bench. Please do give my best wishes to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith); I hope she gets better soon. This debate has obviously given the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich the opportunity to showcase her talents. I am sure that any forthcoming reshuffle will see her rapidly promoted through the ranks.

I also thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), whom I have sparred with on several occasions already since my appointment as Minister for the constitution. His dedication to matters constitutional cannot be doubted. He has called several debates before, on several different issues. Today’s debate on the publication of the Burns report is particularly timely, coming so soon after its publication on 31 October. This debate has given Members of the Commons the opportunity to reflect upon its recommendations and to put their views, however different and passionate, on record. I am sure this will provide an invaluable record for the other place when it discusses these matters—I will discuss that later—recognising the individual views of Members here today.

The Government believe that the House of Lords plays a vital role in scrutinising, checking and challenging the work of the elected House of Commons, and in doing so it brings a wealth of expertise and experience to bear on that work. We will ensure that the Lords continues to fulfil this vital constitutional role, at the same time as respecting the vital privacy of the elected House of Commons.

Hon. Members have already touched on this, but I am sure they will not be surprised to hear that the Government do not consider comprehensive reform—it is important to stress “comprehensive”—of the House of Lords to be a priority. It has been mentioned, but I will quote in full the statement in the Conservative party manifesto in 2017:

“Although comprehensive reform is not a priority we will ensure that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising and scrutinising chamber which respects the primacy of the House of Commons. We have already undertaken reform to allow the retirement of peers and the expulsion of members for poor conduct and will continue to ensure the work of the House of Lords remains relevant and effective by addressing issues such as its size.”

While the Government have stated that their priority is not comprehensive reform, we still believe it is important—this is a crucial point—that where there is consensus, we have been able to undertake incremental reforms of the other place. We have worked with both Houses to introduce some focused and important reforms.

[David Hanson]

Will the Government seek to block Lord Grocott’s Bill, which is the No. 1 private Member’s Bill in the House of Lords, to end hereditary peer elections?

[Chris Skidmore]

I had hoped to touch on hereditary peers later, but I will come to that point now. We had a debate in Westminster Hall in July. I recognise that Lord Grocott’s Bill had its Second Reading in September. The Government still hold their position that it must be for the other place to reach a consensus around reform. If the other place reaches consensus, we will work with the House of Lords to look at what incremental changes are taking place. Lord Grocott’s Bill and the issue of hereditary peers will be further debated. We will be looking at that Bill going forwards. Obviously we will be debating the right hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill, which he mentioned, on 27 April, and I hope to be in my place discussing those issues with him.

In order to take reform forwards—I will touch on the historical precedents at a later point—we need to ensure that we have consensus. With Government support, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 enabled peers to retire permanently for the first time and provided for peers to be disqualified when they do not attend or are convicted of serious offences. We supported the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, which provided this House with the power to expel Members in cases of serious misconduct. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which enabled peers to retire for the first time, has resulted in over 70 peers now taking advantage of the retirement provisions. That goes to show that incremental change can have a significant and dramatic effect on the House of Lords—its reform and it size. As a result of the 2014 Act, retirement is becoming part of the culture of the Lords. We have had other Bills, such as the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, which has allowed female bishops to sit in the Lords for the first time.

The Government are clear that we want to work constructively with Members and peers to look at pragmatic ideas for reducing the size of the Lords. It is by making those incremental reforms, which command consensus, rather than comprehensive reforms, that real progress can be made.

[Ronnie Cowan]

On that point, paragraph 10, on page 9 of the report, says:

“Since 1997, appointments have averaged 35 per year”.

I will skip through some of it, but basically it says that if we continue at this rate, we will

“settle at about 875 which, together with 92 hereditary peers and 26 Bishops…a total membership of nearly 1,000.”

That is the path we are on.

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are committed to seeing a reduction—they welcome a reduction—in the size of the House of Lords. The Government welcome the publication of the report and are looking forward to the peers debating it. It is not that the Government deny the growing size of the House of Lords is an issue; of course we recognise it as an issue, and one that needs to be solved. Where we might differ is in our view on how to reach the destination by which to provide a solution. We believe that the Lords themselves coming together, forming the cross-party Lord Speaker’s Committee on the back of the motion that was debated, provides a potential way forward, but it is not for the Government to lead on this particular issue. Rather, it is for the Lords to be able to come forward with proposals that we know will then be able to be passed by both Houses.

I personally have been involved in this myself. I have the scars on my back from 2012, when the coalition Government introduced proposals to introduce a partially elected House of Lords—measures that I personally supported at the time. Those measures failed to be enacted, because of a cross-party coalition of Labour and Conservative Members at the time who decided to vote against the programme motion. The lesson I learnt from that about reform of our constitution is that it is much better to take incremental steps to be able to deliver a dramatic change, such as through the retirement of peers legislation. We can then deliver a change to the statute book without having to march Back Benchers through the Lobbies and without marching parties to a stage where U-turns have to be made. I do not want the Government to make U-turns on their constitutional positions; I want the Government to be confident and not mislead Back Benchers and Members. We want to make change through consensus.

[Mike Amesbury]

On consensus, surely the 92 hereditary turkeys would not vote for Christmas. They would not drive reform, but surely, as the sovereign, democratically elected Chamber, we should.

[Chris Skidmore]

Well, we had our chance in the House of Commons to drive reform—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman was not there at the time, but Labour Members voted with Members of another party to block the programme motion. I do not want to revisit the details, but they show that we had the opportunity to introduce a partially elected Chamber. The coalition Government—this is now in the annals of constitutional history—attempted to introduce an elected Chamber, but that was not possible, so we have learnt that the best way forward is to work with the Lords to look at what is possible and achieve change within a realistic timetable.

That is why we welcome the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which was chaired by Lord Burns. As Members are aware, in December 2016 the House of Lords passed a motion stating that its size should be reduced. The Government welcome the fact that the House of Lords had that debate and passed that motion. It is absolutely vital that the House of Lords recognised that its size should be reduced and that methods for how that might be achieved should be explored.

Following the motion, the Lord Speaker established a Committee, chaired by Lord Burns, to identify practical and politically viable options for reducing the size of the House that would not require primary legislation. Just as important as the point about consensus is the point about primary legislation. Achieving this viable change that allows us to reduce the numbers in the House of Lords over a period of time—I will look at the detail in a moment—is about the art of the possible and ensuring that we can begin the process that is needed.

The Government thank Lord Burns and his cross-party Committee for their work. It met 22 times and took evidence from more than 60 Members of the other place. They clearly put a great deal of work and effort into the report. Its key recommendations include a reduction in the size of the House of Lords to 600 Members, which would then become a cap. To reach the target of 600, there should be a guiding principle of two out, one in. When the target of 600 had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated on a one-out, one-in system. Vacancies should be overseen by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and allocated to each of the parties according to a mean average of their percentage share of the seats in the House of Commons and their percentage share of the national vote in the most recent general election. It also recommended fixed-term membership of the House of 15 years for new appointments, enforced by the House of Lords code of conduct.

The Government will consider the recommendations carefully. The report is incredibly detailed, and I encourage all hon. Members of both Houses who have not read the report to read through its pages.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am keen to press the Minister on one point. The report’s introduction makes it clear that for the non-legislative reforms to work, they will require the consent of the Prime Minister of the day for the appointments they make to the upper House, both in terms of the number and the proportion across the parties. Is he in a position to say on behalf of the current Government and Prime Minister whether they will try to achieve those objectives or seek to frustrate them?

[Chris Skidmore]

Following on from my key point about consensus, the history of Lords reform shows us that if proposals are to be effective and stand any chance of succeeding, they will need to command a consensus across the House of Lords. The Government want to listen closely to what peers have to say in response to the report. I believe that before the Government set out their position, it is important to test the mood of the House of Lords on the proposals to see whether a consensus will emerge.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Government will make time for a debate in the Lords, and I can say today that it will take place before Christmas. I hope this debate provides material for the Lords to consider. It has been incredibly timely, given that the Lords will debate this issue in the other place before Christmas. The Government look forward to that debate.

[Patrick Grady]

I apologise if I missed this, but I do not think I heard the Minister answer my question about the compatibility with the European convention on human rights. If that is complicated and he wants to write to me, I will be happy to receive a letter.

[Chris Skidmore]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for flagging up the point he raised, because it was remiss of me not to touch on that detail. The House of Lords fulfils its constitutional position in scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account, but it remains subordinate to the will of the Commons, whose Members are democratically elected. It is important that that prevails, but on his point about the legal framework in relation to the ECHR, I am happy to write to him. I assure him that he will receive a detailed letter from me setting out the Government’s answer to the finer points of his question.

[Luke Graham]

The Minister rightly said that any reform should be a cross-party process. Bearing in mind that the Scottish National party does not take its seats in the House of Lords, would he find it useful for the SNP to clarify its position on Lords reform and say whether it is in favour of abolition, a unicameral system, or a fully elected second Chamber to be incorporated as part of the deliberations?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point. As this debate has shown, there is a wide variety of views across all parties, which goes to show how important it is that we have careful consideration of reform of the other place. Some people here are absolute abolitionists. Some are in favour of an elected Chamber. Some are obviously not in favour of a UK Parliament—a position that has been taken by the Scottish Nationalists. It is regrettable that they do not take their seats in the House of Lords, as that would enable them to influence the debate. I hope that going forward, all parties can clearly set out their views on the report in detail.

We look forward to the debate in the House of Lords before Christmas and to seeing whether a consensus on the proposals can emerge. I thank all Members who have participated today, and I hope that we can move forward on measures to ensure that we are ultimately able to reduce the size of the House of Lords.

Proportional Representation

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We will come to that issue when I go through some of the commonly raised points that my right hon. Friend and I have discussed for some time.

The crucial point I want to make is that the additional member system used in Germany, Scotland and Wales avoids the vast electoral deserts where people in a part of a country, whether a county or a region, get no plurality of representation despite casting votes for a range of political parties. Front Benchers are called to respond to debates in Westminster Hall. I remember responding to a debate on travel in the south-west of England when I was shadow rail Minister. There were 20 Conservative MPs on the Government Benches and just me on the Opposition Benches to respond. Members would get up and say, “Only the Opposition Front Bencher is here,” but if we look at the election results, we see that even in the south-west more people voted against the Conservative party than for it. Clearly it was the biggest party, but the system delivered 100% representation for a party that was not even getting a majority of the vote in the region. That cannot be right.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

It is an excellent system.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is excellent if we view this simply as a partisan issue where the only thing that matters is our side winning, but as democrats we have to look at this from the point of view of what the public put forward, and we have to respond to that public demand. If we are not doing that, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of elections is to begin with. It cannot just be about maximising individual party advantage and finding a system that gets us to that point. That is not good enough, and it is not what democratic systems are based on.

I will conclude, because we have such a strong turnout in the Chamber. I just want to go through some of the commonly held views, such as those shown in the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay. It is true that lists are suboptimal—there is no doubt about that—but what I find hypocritical is the fact that many of the people who cite lists as an example of undue party advantage know full well that first past the post is open to manipulation. It has always been the case in every party represented here that favoured sons and daughters have been parachuted into constituencies or selection processes have been manipulated. It is simply not true that that can be transferred to any system that has a list involved.

With regard to minority parties, I think that we should teach better history in schools. As the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay was speaking, I thought, “Well, right now things are dependent on the DUP.” We had the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition before that. John Major was dependent on the Ulster Unionists. We had the Callaghan Government’s Lib-Lab pact. We had minority Governments and coalitions before the war. We had the situation with the Irish nationalists. The history of this country is not one of first past the post delivering clear results. In fact, we have had a situation quite recently in which a proportional system has delivered a majority Government in Scotland while first past the post has delivered a hung Parliament in the United Kingdom, so we need to look more closely at the evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The Government welcome this debate on the merits and drawbacks of adopting proportional representation and the opportunity to address the important issues raised by hon. Members. It is fantastic to see such a strong turnout in Westminster Hall for this three-hour debate.

Members have made their arguments eloquently, and we have had a good-natured and high-quality debate that has shown us at our best. Clearly, how we select our representatives in Parliament is of fundamental importance, and Members rightly have strong views on the merits and disadvantages of various voting systems that have sometimes, as we have seen, gone beyond the traditional confines of party politics. The choice of voting system is central to our democracy, which is why such debates are important. I thank the 103,000 petitioners who triggered the debate, as well as the Petitions Committee and its representative, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for giving us the opportunity to have it.

The Government are committed above all to ensuring that the laws governing our elections are clear and generate the greatest degree of confidence. Under the first-past-the-post system, electors select their preferred candidate for their constituency. The candidate with the largest number of votes wins, and the party with the largest number of elected candidates may form a Government. The electorate understand well how their representatives in Parliament are selected under the first-past-the-post system, and it makes it easier for electoral administrators to deliver an election accurately and quickly. The Government therefore do not support proportional representation, as we consider it to be more complicated without delivering the same benefits as first past the post.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister might not be aware that using the single transferable vote system for local government in Scotland allows us to use electronic counting. Has he attended any electronic counts in Scotland to see how simple and well-operated they are?

[Chris Skidmore]

Devolved legislatures have the ability to choose various voting systems; the Government provided those freedoms in the past. I have not attended an electronic count, but I understand that there have been a number of difficulties running them in Scotland. I also understand that we have given Wales the freedom to consider electronic voting in future, and I look forward to seeing what comes from the pilots there.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) mentioned, we committed in our manifesto not only to retain first past the post for parliamentary elections but to extend it to elections for police and crime commissioners and Mayors. In line with that, the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. We will seek to legislate on that matter—

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Conservative party did not win a majority, so one could turn the argument round and say that therefore, the majority do not support continuing with first past the post and what the Conservatives propose in their manifesto.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

We have a system of representative democracy. The largest party that forms a Government can then implement its manifesto. That is clearly in line with historical precedent. We will seek to legislate on the matter and meet our manifesto commitments when legislative time allows.

I turn to the specifics of why the Government believe that retaining first past the post is the best system for the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned the administration of elections and the burdens on staff. Electoral systems used to achieve proportional representation are often more complex than a first-past-the-post system. Systems such as the single transferable vote require ballots to be counted multiple times in order to allocate seats, which lengthens the duration of the count and therefore the time and effort taken to determine a result.

Conversely, first past the post entails a relatively simple count that, hopefully, need only be conducted once, except where the margin between candidates is slim, which minimises the pressure on the administrative process and the possibility of error. Furthermore, the simplicity of the count means that a result is produced much more quickly, normally during the night following the poll, with an overall result early the next day; long may the election night count and the declaration of results continue. A timely result is in the interests of all parties and the country as a whole.

The first-past-the-post system is well established in the United Kingdom and easy for the electorate to understand. Consequently, elections using first past the post produce fewer rejected ballot papers than other systems, including proportional representation systems such as STV. According to the Electoral Commission, the use of the single transferable vote in the Scottish council elections led to 37,492 ballots being rejected, or 1.95%, a proportion of total ballots cast nearly six times higher than under first past the post in the 2015 general election, in which only 0.33% of ballots were rejected. In the 2016 election of the police and crime commissioner for England and Wales, a remarkable 311,000 ballots were rejected, out of a turnout of 8.8 million. That is 3.4%. In the same year, there were just 25,000 spoiled ballot papers in the EU referendum.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is that not an argument for more funding for education, rather than for changing the system?

[Chris Skidmore]

No. I believe that the simplest system—putting a cross in a box and having one Member and one vote—is the first-past-the-post system. That is why the Government want to legislate to return to that system, so that we have a simple system that is well understood across all elections. The Government have serious concerns that proportional representation voting systems are less likely to be understood and followed correctly by members of the public, increasing the likelihood that ballot papers will be completed incorrectly.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the Minister really think that the population of Britain is significantly less intelligent than the population of Germany, France, Denmark and Finland—all the countries that use proportional representation? Is he saying that, with education, people could not work out how to use that system? That is a pretty big indictment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I am not saying that at all. If there is any indictment, it is on a system that leads to a large number of rejected ballot papers. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned the issue of voter engagement and ensuring that people vote. There is a massive discrepancy between the systems when it comes to turnout and people filling out a correct ballot. The first-past-the-post system works, so why do we need to change it? Proportional representation disenfranchises people who participate and then find out that their ballots were rejected—or they do not even find out. The system works against them and their democratic right.

[Cat Smith]

The Minister makes the point that the elections for the police and crime commissioners had a higher proportion of spoilt ballot papers than a general election. If that is the case, perhaps the public are sending a message that they do not want to elect police and crime commissioners in the first place?

[Chris Skidmore]

That may be the hon. Lady’s view, but the Government’s view is that 311,000 spoilt ballot papers are a problem—we are looking at how the transfer of votes took place and a misnumbering in that system. The Electoral Commission also recognises that problem.

High numbers of incorrectly completed ballot papers put pressure on the administrative process at the count. If a voter’s preference is unclear, administrators must adjudicate on whether the ballot paper can be assigned to a candidate or rejected. That increases the burden on administrators by prolonging the count and requiring some ballots to be counted twice, or multiple times. For those reasons, the Government support the continued use of the first-past-the-post system because it retains the confidence of the electorate, results in the lowest level of errors in ballot paper completion and reduces pressure on the administrative process of adjudicating unclear ballots.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned the crucial constituency link, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) also reflected on, along with other hon. Members with varying views. I personally believe that that link with individual Members of Parliament who represent electors in a defined constituency is a core feature of our parliamentary democracy with the first-past-the-post system. Constituents have a distinct parliamentary representative who is directly accountable to them. The manner of that representation may be less obvious when someone is elected under a proportional representation system or a list system that uses larger multi-Member constituencies. Although hon. Members have different views, that was brought up countless times on the doorstep at the AV referendum.

In the United Kingdom, the Government conducted a referendum on whether the voting system to elect Members of Parliament should be changed from first past the post.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am bemused by the Minister’s argument. The AV system would retain single Member constituencies represented by a single Member of Parliament. What is the relevance of the argument about the constituency link?

[Chris Skidmore]

In contrast to AV or other proportional forms, the constituency link with first past the post is that a clearly defined person in that constituency has won with the plurality of votes—actually, the same number of votes.

I well remember a cross-party debate on this subject with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), as he is now, and Billy Bragg in Bristol City Council’s Council House. The result of the AV referendum was that 13 million people—more than two-thirds of people who voted—voted in favour of retaining first past the post. The Government believe it would be hard to justify ignoring that democratic verdict in the referendum or to make the case for a further referendum on more ambitious reform such as PR when the more modest alternative vote proposal was defeated so resoundingly.

The referendum was an overwhelming vote for the status quo of first past the post. The Government are committed to first past the post and the clear, overriding principle of one person, one vote. When it comes to the vote, why should one person’s vote be worth three, four, five or six times more than another person’s? Every vote is equal, so every vote should be counted equally. That is why we believe in the first-past-the-post system as the fairest and clearest mechanism by which to elect this democratically elected Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Skidmore Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to support the integrity of the electoral registration process.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

According to the Electoral Commission, the register used for June’s general election was the most accurate for years. The identity of applicants is verified by electoral registration officers using digital services provided by the Cabinet Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, and we have seen record levels of engagement. Recommendations in Sir Eric Pickles’ report have been accepted by the Government and will be used to improve the integrity of electoral processes further.

[Eddie Hughes]

Given concerns about students having the opportunity to vote twice, will my right hon. Friend consider joining me in supporting the private Member’s Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)?

[Chris Skidmore]

Although being registered at more than one address is perfectly legal, voting more than once at a general election is a crime that currently carries an unlimited financial penalty. The Government are reviewing a range of measures to prevent people from voting twice at general elections, and I also understand that the police are investigating allegations in several local authorities on this issue. I remind hon. Members that any evidence that individuals might have voted twice must be reported to the police.

[Simon Hoare]

I recognise the fines that my hon. Friend has drawn to the House’s attention, but is it not time to consider custodial sentences for election fraud?

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At the moment, there is an unlimited fine, but the Government are considering a range of other measures, including in relation to criminal proceedings, in order to move forwards.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

11. Rather than focusing on the very few cases of fraud and the limited number of convictions—the same issue the Trump Administration have raised to discredit the democratic process—why does the Minister not worry about the millions who are not registered and consider using national insurance numbers and automatic registration in order to ensure both an accurate and a complete register?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are committed to ensuring individual voter registration. A complete register means nothing unless it is underpinned by accuracy, and we have the most accurate register. On electoral fraud, I make the point, as I have done repeatedly before, that it is the perception of fraud that is so corrosive to our democracy. The Electoral Commission’s report published today shows that 38% of people recognise that electoral fraud is an issue at general elections.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The integrity of the electoral register suffers while millions of British citizens are unregistered. What specific measures is the Minister taking to register the millions of young people who remain off the register, and what specific funds has he allocated to that worthy cause?

[Chris Skidmore]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that at the last general election there were more people on the electoral register, and more people voting, than there have been since 1992. We should bear in mind the state of the Labour Government between 2001 and 2005, when there were far more people off the register. We are determined to have a democracy that works for everyone, and we are introducing a range of measures to that end. They include the publication of a democratic engagement strategy later this year, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Is the Minister aware of the massive change in Northern Ireland constituencies in terms of proxy votes between the 2015 general election and this year’s election, when thousands of people applied for and received proxy votes, which, in some constituencies, resulted in a virtual usurping of the election result? What plans has the Minister to address that?

[Chris Skidmore]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, electoral policy in Northern Ireland is dealt with by the Northern Ireland Office, but the Cabinet Office is working closely on how individual electoral registration can be introduced in Northern Ireland. I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s point to the Northern Ireland Office, but proof of identity has been required in polling stations in Northern Ireland since 1985, and the Labour Government introduced photo ID in 2003. Northern Ireland has led the way when it comes to ensuring that we can crack down on electoral fraud.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to tackle electoral fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure that the lobbying of Government is carried out in a transparent and fair manner.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

The Government are committed to transparency in lobbying. In 2014 we created a statutory register of consultant lobbyists to increase transparency among those seeking to lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries on behalf of third parties. That legislation complements the existing framework of industry-led regulation.

[Ms Lee]

The Minister has restricted trade unions and charities with regard to lobbying; can he tell us when he will properly regulate big business lobbying to Government?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are of the view that the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 increased transparency around the work of consultants and lobbyists and therefore we will not be undertaking any future review. The Act confers powers on the register of lobbyists to remove an organisation from the register if that organisation seeks to undertake any work in future.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of reducing the voting age to 16.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

The Government have stated in their manifesto a clear commitment to maintain the voting age of 18, so the Government have no plans to lower the voting age in elections.

[Gerald Jones]

The Labour Welsh Government are currently making provision in Wales for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local and Welsh Government elections. Will the Minister urge his Government and other Conservative Members to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) on 3 November, to prove that this Government do not disregard the views of young people?

[Chris Skidmore]

As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, this Government have given powers to the devolved Assemblies to make decisions in respect of their local government and regional elections, but the position of the Government remains clear: on the parliamentary franchise, the age will remain at 18. Of course, I look forward to the many contributions that will be made in the debate on that.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

The voting age is one thing, but has my hon. Friend given any consideration to the issue of education in schools around electoral fraud—for example, double voting?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are of course determined to engage the many young people in schools in the democratic processes. Recently I established a national democracy week, in which I hope all Members will take part. It is vital for democratic participation that we encourage young people to get involved as early as possible, and to be educated in our democratic processes.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that sometimes young people make mistakes, and that it cannot be right that a teenager at the age of 16 can make the mistake of joining the Conservative party and voting in the inevitably upcoming leadership election, yet would be denied a vote at the forthcoming general election?

[Chris Skidmore]

We have had many debates on the franchise, and I have sat as a Back Bencher through several debates in my parliamentary career so far; I think Parliament has voted three times on the issue and has consistently decided not to introduce votes at 16. We will be having future debates, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Lady in them in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

T7. The young people with whom I engage in schools are increasingly aware of the world around them. They are economically and socially liberal, and they do not expect the state to pay for everything because they will have the longest repayment terms if it does. Given the Conservative party’s proud record on extending the franchise, I again ask the Minister to consider votes for 16 and 17-year-olds.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. The Government’s position remains as it was in our manifesto: the franchise will be retained at 18. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to participate in future debates on this issue through private Members’ Bills on Fridays.