Draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure, as always, to have you looking after us during our deliberations, Mr McCabe. The draft regulations, which are largely procedural, set out the detailed framework for the administration of the referendum poll. They are a piece of vital, but generally ignored, electoral plumbing to set out how the polls should be run. In fact, we had a roughly equivalent discussion a couple of week ago about regulations setting out conduct in the process for the recall of MPs in perhaps this very room.

I thank members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which approved the draft regulations on 5 February, and members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place for their consideration of the measure. The regulations specify matters such as how ballot papers will be issued and how voting will take place in polling stations. They also specify the arrangements for absent voting, which provide for people to vote by post or by proxy if they do not want to vote in person. They cover arrangements for the count and the declaration of results, as well as how ballot papers and other referendum documents will be disposed of after the poll. They also apply existing electoral offences, such as double voting, to the referendum.

All elections have conduct rules, which are a routine but necessary part of every British poll. We have modelled these conduct regulations on the rules that were used to administer the parliamentary voting system—alternative vote—referendum in May 2011, which were themselves modelled on those used for ordinary UK parliamentary elections, so they will be relatively familiar to election administrators. The Parliament and Government of Gibraltar will make equivalent rules for the administration of the referendum there. In addition, minor changes to the UK rules have been needed to reflect the fact that the European Union referendum will take place in Gibraltar as well as the United Kingdom. We have also taken into account changes in electoral law since the 2011 referendum, as well as recommendations from the Electoral Commission. For example, in line with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, the regulations provide for people queuing at the point when a polling station closes to vote.

Hon. Members will recall that the conduct regulations were published in draft in July 2015 to give the Electoral Commission, Members of Parliament and any other interested parties an opportunity to review them. That gave electoral administrators significant advance notice, thus allowing them to begin planning far in advance of the poll. The responses that we received, which were largely technical, were carefully considered before the regulations were finalised. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I welcome the support in principle for the regulations expressed by the hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Glenrothes. They said that they were content that the regulations should go forward, although they had questions to ask, which I shall endeavour to answer. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that we will consider perhaps more contentious statutory instruments in this referendum process, for example to set the date of the referendum and the designation period. Those are for another time, so I will not try your patience by talking about them, Mr McCabe; I will stick purely to what I hope is the relatively uncontentious piece of electoral plumbing before us.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the police officers at polling stations should be warranted police officers or PCSOs. Ultimately, it is down to local police forces, in conjunction and discussion with local election administrators, to decide where possible flashpoints and hot spots, if any, might be. They will know from previous elections which polling stations might have problems and which are unlikely to, and they will need to distribute their resources appropriately to reflect that. One would hope and expect that they will have people on stand-by or already available there. The important thing, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observed, is that there is more potential for police involvement at polling stations, should that be necessary—we all hope that it will not—to ensure that an orderly and safe poll, and, most importantly of all, a secret ballot, is properly concluded.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extension of emergency proxy votes. We are trying to be a little careful because, as he will know, the report into electoral fraud that is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) is due shortly. We will have to wait and see what it says, but it might have recommendations about postal voting and proxy voting as part of the overall position on electoral reform, so we will probably want to wait until it is published before making any substantial changes either to relax or to tighten up those rules. Of course, when the report does come out, I am sure that we will scrutinise it carefully.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether Gibraltarians should be treated the same as those in other overseas territories. I think he may be implicitly making common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is very keen on ensuring that other overseas territories outside the continental mass of Europe have an opportunity for closer involvement in British democracy, and potentially to send MPs to Westminster. I encourage him to discuss that with my hon. Friend in detail, should he be so minded. Beyond that, I can add little to the elegant response to the hon. Gentleman’s point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, other than to say that our starting point was that the franchise—I think we covered this when we considered the primary legislation for the referendum—should be based on that for a UK parliamentary election. That explains why some of the other places around the globe that the hon. Member for Caerphilly cited are not part of the franchise. There have been limited changes, which we tried to minimise, but given Gibraltar’s special status within the continent of Europe and the fact that Gibraltarians get to vote in European parliamentary elections, we felt that that was worthy of one of the very few alterations to the basic franchise.

The hon. Gentleman also asked why Manchester was to be used for the declarations. The hon. Member for Glenrothes said that many people in northern England would support the idea of Manchester, but I suggest gently that he might want to tread a bit carefully because, from what I understand of the local and regional rivalries between cities in the north of England, he might not find that there is quite such a degree of unanimity about Manchester being the right place when people start to consider competing bids from other cities.

[Peter Grant]

Would not the Minister accept that even Manchester and Leeds may be united in their opinion of London?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the rivalries between English cities outside London are strong; I think they could rival that between Celtic and Rangers.

Matters such as the location and distribution of the regional counting centres are primarily for the Electoral Commission, because it is effectively the chief counting officer for the referendum, unlike in a normal parliamentary or local election, when that is done by local councils. The Electoral Commission will be in charge of many of the decisions about where things can be efficiently done.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked when the counts will start and how long they will last. In general, they will start as soon as practicable after the close of poll, although there will be some geographical issues with transporting ballot boxes around and so on. They will continue overnight so that we have a prompt declaration. Beyond that, this is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but its guidance applies in a similar way as in parliamentary elections. It will realise that the country will not be particularly understanding of unreasonable delays. People will want an answer, and they will want it quickly. The commission will understand the importance of a prompt and efficient count.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about recounts which, again, are covered by the usual rules. The situation is heavily dependent on the professional good judgment of local count administrators, who are well trained and in most cases very experienced, because they handle many other elections. They are the people to whom we, as Members of Parliament, have spoken at our individual counts at parliamentary elections about bad and doubtful ballot papers, and whether there needs to be a bundle check of this or that part of the count. Those same rules will, broadly speaking, apply in the usual way to ensure the general level of good order we have all, rightly, come to expect in British elections, no matter what their purpose.

I hope that I have covered all the points raised and that we can move to approving these regulations, given the welcome cross-party support that has been evident today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016.

EU Referendum: Timing

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I am delighted to respond to this important debate, and I commend the long-standing support of the Democratic Unionist party for the principle of holding a referendum on the European Union. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), its members were there earlier than many, and I think that their consistency and constancy in respect of that principle can serve as a model for others.

Before we get too far into the debate, let me say that I think it is important for us all to remember that any debate about the referendum date needs to be undertaken in the conditional mood. In other words—if I may make a statement of the blindingly obvious—the date has not yet been set. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, it is renegotiation and then referendum. As the renegotiation is not yet complete, there is, as yet, no referendum date.

[Alex Salmond]

Given the breadth of the range of interests among the parties in the devolved nations that are asking for the referendum not to be held in June, and given that no date has been set, why are the Government so reluctant to accede to the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)?

[John Penrose]

I am coming to that, but I think it would be, at the very least, disrespectful to the principle behind the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which requires the date of the referendum to be set through a debate in the House on a statutory instrument, under the affirmative resolution procedure, in due course. When that point comes, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the issue. I think that it would be premature to start ruling too many dates in or out, although I will be specifying the dates that we have already ruled out.

[Philip Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Penrose]

I will, but then I really must make some progress.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I realise that we are not talking about a specific date proposed by the Government, but about the principle of opting for certain dates. Will my hon. Friend comment on the appropriateness of holding the referendum on the same date as a European Council meeting?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous follower of matters European, but I suspect that he may be one of the very few people in the entire country who pay quite so much attention to the musings of the European Council. I think that the Council would be honoured to feel that its conclusions carried as much weight with anyone else as they clearly do with him. I shall address some of the broader issues underlying his question in a moment.

I said that the renegotiation was not yet complete and that, therefore, a date for the referendum had not yet been set because I suspected that certain Members might try—gently and kindly, I am sure—to tempt me to commit some hideous indiscretion by revealing a planned referendum date, whether in June or in any other month between now and the end of 2017. For the sake of our collective mental and emotional health, and to save us all an awful lot of time, I thought that I should take this opportunity to advise any amateur Kremlinologists who might be hoping to glean clues about the date of the referendum from close textual analysis of my remarks not to bother, because there are no clues.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, will he answer a very simple question? Does he agree with the points that were raised in the letter from the three First Ministers?

[John Penrose]

I shall address those points in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pick me up if he feels that I have glossed over any of them inappropriately.

Let me repeat that there are no clues. Alan Greenspan, the famously gnomic and opaque former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, once said:

“I guess I should warn you: if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I've said.”

He went on to say:

“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

In other words, clues are to be avoided.

However, even if we do not know the precise date on which the referendum will be held, we know several dates on which it will definitely not be held. It will not be held on 5 May this year or on 4 May 2017, because both those dates are expressly excluded in the primary legislation that we passed last year, and—as was recently promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—it will not be held within six weeks of 5 May this year. Although we do not yet know the exact date, those exclusions are important, because they create and guarantee enough time between the referendum and any other upcoming elections to ensure that the important issues that arise in each set of polls are debated fully and separately in each case.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Referendum Act specifies a 10-week period between the Government’s publication of their response to the negotiations and the referendum date, presumably because both this House and the other place thought that people needed that period to digest the information. Would it not be wrong for three of those 10 weeks to fall right in the middle of an election campaign affecting over 20 million citizens who will be voting in the referendum a few weeks later?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am coming to that point. I hope that I shall be able to respond to it adequately, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come back to me if I do not.

It is important for those issues to be debated fully and separately, because, as we have just heard, 5 May this year will be a very busy time at the ballot boxes. I need mention only a few of the votes that will be held then: votes for the Mayor of London, for police and crime commissioners, and for devolved legislatures in Stormont, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

I am not arguing, as some do, that it is impossible to hold more than one election in the same place and on the same day.  The fact that local council elections took place at the same time as the general election in many parts of the country last May without democracy collapsing in a heap shows that voters, and election administrators, are perfectly capable of handling such a situation comfortably. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), everyone is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, and I think that the right hon. Member for Belfast North made it clear that that was not the main source of his concern.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I accept what the Minister has said, but does he agree that this particular referendum will absorb the minds and hearts of people throughout the United Kingdom as no referendum has for 40 years, and must therefore be unencumbered by any other electoral considerations?

[John Penrose]

I agree with part of that. The important point is that the overlap needs to be dealt with extremely carefully. We must not attempt to run two polls at the same time, but an overlap is perfectly feasible provided that we accept a gap of a minimum of six weeks between them. I remind the House that six weeks is the full length of a general election campaign during which we decide who is to govern the country.

[Mark Spencer]

I am sorry to tell the Minister that after a six-week general election campaign my constituents are pretty cheesed off with politics. I think we need to understand that not everyone in the country is as excited about politics as we are in this place. A short campaign enables people to focus on the issues, and then to make a decision at the end of that short campaign.

[John Penrose]

Absolutely. Europe is one of those issues that may be extremely exciting for a small number of people—extremely exciting, perhaps, to a small number of people in this place and in the half-mile that surrounds us—but if we “bang on about Europe” for far too long, we shall run the countervailing risk of starting to turn people off the whole issue, important though it is. A decent period which, after all, we use to decide general elections is what the country and the electorate are used to. It allows plenty of time for a full and in-depth discussion of the issues that need to be covered, without necessarily boring everyone to tears and turning everyone off before they go to the ballot boxes. Of course I entirely accept that a gap will be necessary.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Given that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom and will continue to do so for a long time, I expect the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to come to Northern Ireland and campaign for it to remain part of the European Union. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the Prime Minister will indeed campaign in Northern Ireland, but will do so after the Northern Ireland Assembly elections and not before.

[John Penrose]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me this opportunity to commit the Prime Minister’s forward diary in such a specific way, although I think it would be a career-limiting move were I to do so. I suspect that she will nevertheless make her point strongly, and my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity to respond to it specifically.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I am sure the Minister would agree that the decision on whether to remain in the European Union is at least as important as the decision that Scotland had to take on remaining in or leaving the United Kingdom. There were 540 days between the announcement of the Scottish referendum and the date of the poll. We are not necessarily suggesting that there should be that length of time before this referendum, but if the Minister is saying that there should be a free and open discussion, the period should surely be longer than six weeks.

[John Penrose]

This is where I would respectfully part company with the hon. Gentleman. While it would be stretching a point to argue that holding two polls in the same place a minimum of six weeks apart would be somehow disrespectful or that it would prejudice the result of either poll—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Penrose]

May I just finish this point, then I will give way?

While that would be stretching a point, I believe that it is important to provide enough time for the issues and arguments to be debated fully. A six-week minimum—which is, after all, the length of an entire general election campaign—would provide plenty of time for an extremely full and detailed democratic debate to take place.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I love that! The final possible date for the referendum is 31 December 2017. Would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that it is a slam dunk that we would not hold the referendum during the French presidential elections in April and May 2017 or during the German federal elections on 22 September of that year?

[John Penrose]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on sitting in a different place in order to demonstrate flexibility of mind and his ability to take a different approach once in a while, just to keep us all on our toes? On the specifics of his question, I have to confess that those elements have not been factored into any of my discussions on potential dates so far. Perhaps they should be, however, and I will take that information away if I possibly can.

The motion also notes the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on best practice for referendums. The commission has produced reports on previous referendums and we have taken on board many, if not all, of its recommendations in the European Union Referendum Act, including those on pre-poll reporting of donations and loans. We have also taken on board its views in other areas. For example, we followed its recommendation to change the wording of the referendum question. We also consulted it on the draft conduct regulations, which set out the detailed framework for the administration of the referendum poll. Those are just a few examples of how we have listened to the commission’s thoughts.

[Alex Salmond]

I am slightly puzzled as to why the Minister is praying in aid the fact that the Government have ruled out 5 May—the date of the elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. My certain memory of the process last year during the passage of the Bill is that the Government did that only unwillingly when they were facing certain defeat on the legislation, so why is he now presenting this as a great Government concession?

[John Penrose]

I am just referring back to my notes, because I do not think I said that we did anything in that regard. I said that “both those dates are expressly excluded in the primary legislation that we passed last year”—that is, the legislation that this Parliament passed last year. I will leave it to Kremlinologists and others to decide whether that was done under pressure, with grace or in any other way. None the less, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the will of Parliament was expressed and that it was listened to extremely carefully.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am sure the Minister will know that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am Chairman, is taking an interest in the matter of the date. I also declare my interest as a director of Vote Leave, one of the potentially designated campaigns. May I press him on an assurance that he gave the House in September last year? He said that

“it is important that the designation process means that the decision on who are the lead campaign groups for the in and the out campaigns is properly arrived at that and those groups are clearly designated before the start of the 10-week campaign”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 157.]

Does the Minister stand by that assurance, or is this going to be fudged?

[John Penrose]

I remember that moment clearly. In fact, I think I was responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in making that point. What I was trying to put across was that I had what I thought was a brilliant solution to the potential problem of any compressed timetable, should there be one, in order to find enough time for both the designation and the full referendum timescale. The original point I was making at that point in our discussions—I think it was during the Bill’s Committee stage, but I could be wrong—was that we could have dealt with the designation process through a negative statutory instrument, which could be made when it was laid, thus allowing the designation process to start early and finish before the beginning of the referendum period. I think that that is what everyone was driving at, at that time.

However, the equivalent of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the Lords felt that a negative statutory instrument was inappropriate and said that a positive statutory instrument should be used. That has made it rather more difficult, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, for me to achieve the aims that we were discussing at that point. If I may, I will take his earnest and strongly made point, and the point that he made earlier to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, to indicate a strong preference for starting the designation process as early as possible, should there be a compressed timetable. I am sure that the various campaigns are already working on their designation submissions and that, were it to be necessary, my hon. Friend would be able to aim for a shorter and very efficient designation process in order to avoid an overlap between the end of the designation and the start of the referendum process.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[John Penrose]

Does my hon. Friend want to come back to me, perhaps to assure me that I have understood him correctly?

[Mr Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, I believe that he will be bound by his commitment unless the Government put on record before the House agrees to that affirmative resolution procedure that the consequence of agreeing to that procedure might be that the campaigns may not be designated until the referendum campaigns had already started. If there is going to be a referendum on 23 June, which seems to be a possibility, either the regulations will have to be expedited in order to foreshorten the period and allow us to start the designation process earlier or the Minister must put back the date. I am as keen as anybody to get on with this referendum, but not on the basis of undesignated campaigns going into the referendum process without the necessary resources and authority and without being able to plan what they are going to do.

[John Penrose]

It is helpful for my hon. Friend to remind me of the point that I made last year. We are all subject to the will of Parliament, and because the Lords—in this case—decided in their wisdom to change the process that I was laying out at that point, it is now difficult for me to be bound by anything other than the later expressed will of Parliament. However, I appreciate his point that it would be a superior outcome if we could possibly avoid any overlap between the two processes. I think he is saying that he would prefer to see a rapid process for designation, and to start it as promptly and efficiently as possible, should that be necessary. I will take his strongly expressed point back and ensure that we strain every sinew to accommodate him if we can.

I am conscious that other Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall omit my further comments about the other aspects of the Electoral Commission’s advice that we have either been following or not. I want to make it clear that the process from here on is clearly laid out by Parliament in the European Union Referendum Act. The Act requires the Government to bring forward a number of statutory instruments that are subject to the affirmative process—as we have just been hearing—before a poll can be held. They will cover the conduct rules—the detailed plumbing of how the poll will be held—which are already laid before the House and which I hope are uncontroversial, plus regulations setting the date of the referendum period and the start date of the designation period. Those regulations have not yet been laid, but when they are, this debate will be able to move, at last, out of the conditional tense and into action.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I want to make a point about the compressed time period and the possible date of 23 June. Scottish schools will be about to go on holiday at that point and many of the electorate will be either planning or starting to take their holidays. In some local authorities, 22 June will be the date in question. It would be unthinkable to have a vote of such importance during the English school holidays, yet this vote could actually take place during the Scottish school holidays.

[John Penrose]

I have to go back to my starting point about being tempted into giving guidance on when the referendum vote might be; that is not a matter about which we are able to tell anybody yet, because we do not have a completion of the negotiations and without that there can be no referendum. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that point, but I am sure he will note the hon. Lady’s point when he considers the matter.

The Government are going to be doing something that has not been achieved for more than a generation. We will be giving people something that I, along with many others in Parliament and across the entire country, have long been denied: a vote, a say, a voice on our relationship with the European Union. Whichever side of that argument we are on, whether we vote to leave or to remain, I hope that as democrats we will all welcome the dawning of that referendum day.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Several Members have said that already. The Government have tried to perpetuate these scare stories, but they do not have enough to last them until September. The danger is that there are not scare stories, but scary facts and events in the pipeline that could influence the referendum. Again that might be one reason for the decision to have an earlier referendum. The Minister rightly said that no date had been set and that he was not in the job of giving clues. It was the first time I had heard anybody in the House admit to making a clueless speech. Those were his own words. He said he would not be giving any clues about when the referendum would be held.

[John Penrose]

In my defence, I think the word has a double meaning, and I meant the other one.

[Sammy Wilson]

It does. I accept that. I was simply stating that the Minister had indicated he was going to make a clueless speech. The one thing I would say to him is that he has already ruled out certain dates, so ruling out one more day in the 670 days that remain before the last date on which the referendum could be held is not an unreasonable request, especially when there has been such unanimity among the devolved Administrations to do so. I hope that the Minister carries back the message that has come from the Chamber today.

Let me go through some of the arguments used by those who oppose the motion. The first is that using the term “rushed” is a bit over the top. I noted that the hon. Members for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) all queried the point about the referendum being rushed. Of course the debate about our membership of the EU has been going on for some time now, but the referendum is going to be on the Prime Minister’s promised reform, and we do not yet know the terms of what he has got. Those issues will have to be addressed along with all the wider issues affecting our membership of the EU.

It is not a question of our simply having talked about the issue for a long time. The same thing could be said about what happens between one election and another. All the issues pertaining to an election are discussed over a five-year period, but the election campaign is the time when people focus most on those issues. When we talk about the referendum being rushed, we are simply asking why we should compress the debate into a short period, especially when it has implications for the devolved Administrations.

I have not heard any Member answer the point put time and again by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): how this will affect Administrations that are having elections. Governments will need to be formed after the elections, but instead of getting into the full role of forming a new Government, a new Administration and a new programme for government, we will be into another period of purdah for at least six weeks—after having one of at least four weeks beforehand. That is disruptive of government, and this important point has not been addressed by any Members participating in the debate.

Electoral Law

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you in charge, Mr Howarth, as my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said at the start of his remarks.

It is always a pleasure to receive proposals from Brussels, particularly when they contain suggestions on how it feels our democracy could be improved. We in this mother of Parliaments will consider them carefully. More seriously, the European Scrutiny Committee fulfils a very important role in analysing proposals from European institutions. I welcome the opportunity to consider the Committee’s concerns about the documents, particularly the concern that the proposals from the European Parliament do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

As I am sure we all agree, democratic accountability in Brussels could usefully be improved in the light of a turnout of 43% across Europe—and just 36% in the UK—in the last European elections. That said, changes cannot be imposed that disregard the practices of individual member states. Reforms need to be made in accordance with those practices, and should not be a one-size-fits-all process.

I do not plan to go through things in huge detail at this stage, because we will have a formal debate on the motion, as you mentioned in your earlier remarks, Mr Howarth, so I am happy to answer any questions from hon. Members at this point. I will then expand in more detail on any remaining points at the start of the formal debate.

[The Chair]

We have until 10 am for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask a related supplementary question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have only one question for my hon. Friend and neighbour. The proposal before the Commission is subject to unanimity. Will the Government undertake to veto the proposal?

[John Penrose]

I am not sure of the formal status of our reasoned opinion, but as I plan to state later on, we disagree with large chunks of the proposal, so I cannot see that we will approve it in any form.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

These are, of course, early days in terms of negotiations on what has been suggested by the European Parliament. I think the proposals will initially be considered under the Dutch presidency. Will the Government commit, rather than simply waiting until the end of the process and exercising their veto then if necessary, to contributing positively to make sure that we have allies among other member states on what the European Parliament has suggested?

[John Penrose]

Everybody in all parts of the House keeps telling one another—and the Government—that we need to engage early in any deliberations going on in Brussels to influence what is happening before it is too fully baked—before proposals start to harden. I hope that we are contributing constructively, but in this case, quite critically, to what is proposed. I would expect that with the aid of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we will continue to do so during the passage of this proposal.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the time allotted for questions. If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion.

[John Penrose]

I beg to move,

That this Committee takes note of Unnumbered European Union Documents, a European Parliament Resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union, and a Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the provisions amending the Act concerning the election of members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage; supports the Government’s initial view that it is not persuaded of the merits of many of the proposed measures, and that a number of the proposals concern issues that should be decided at a national level; further notes that there is a power of national veto in respect of the European Parliament's Proposal, and that the Government is therefore not committed to agreeing to any of the proposed measures; and considers that the Proposed Council Decision does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in annex 2 to Chapter 1 of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 342-xviii) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

On 11 November last year, the European Parliament adopted the resolution and proposal that set out a number of proposed changes to the law governing the conduct of European elections. The proposed measures are wide-ranging, and I have noted them with interest—that is, I think, a polite way of putting it.

Although our consideration of the proposed measures is at an early stage, our initial view is that we are not persuaded of the merits of many, if not most, of the proposals, and we do not consider that they would achieve the European Parliament’s stated objectives. Moreover, the Government share the Committee’s concerns that some of the measures do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and the issues that they are designed to address should be decided at national, not European, level. I should also make it clear that all member states need to approve the proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned, in order for them to take effect. There is therefore a power of national veto in respect of the proposals from the European Parliament.

I am pleased to report that many member states agree with us that there are shortcomings in democratic accountability in the EU, as shown by the poor turnout that I mentioned. There is widespread support for enhancing the role that national Parliaments play. That is why the Prime Minister made it clear in his letter to President Tusk that we

“want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals.”

I am sure that we have all read newspaper reports of progress in that direction, but we will have to wait for developments today or tomorrow before we see the all-important detail in that area.

Related to that is the issue of subsidiarity, which goes to the heart of the debate that we, and national Governments and Parliaments around Europe, are having on reform of the EU. Subsidiarity—or localism, to use a more familiar British synonym—governs whether legislation should be enacted at local, national or European level. It is therefore at the core of the idea that the EU must respect the layers of government that are closest and most accountable to European citizens.

It makes sense to take action at the EU level only when it is clearly necessary and in the collective interest of member states to do so. However, the default assumption should be that in all other circumstances, it is better for decision making to be done at the national, regional, or local government level. All too often, that presumption has not been rigorously applied. The gap between the EU and its citizens is growing, and while that is felt acutely in the UK, the concerns are far from limited to our own.

The European Parliament has proposed that it should not be possible for Members of a regional Parliament or Assembly vested with legislative powers to hold the office of MEP. EU law prevents certain office holders from holding that office, including Members of national Parliaments such as hon. Members here today. Clearly, the proposal has the potential to impact on membership of the devolved bodies in the UK, and the Government will want to consider it carefully. My inclination is that it should be firmly left to individual member states to decide this issue. What is right for a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or the Northern Irish Assembly may be entirely inappropriate for office holders in a German Land, a French département or a Greek island.

It is proposed that the lists of candidates that political parties put forward at elections should ensure gender equality. I am not sure why the proposals focus on gender equality and ignore the equally important question of equality for other groups such as those from black and minority ethnic communities, and those with different sexual preferences or religious views, to name only a few. It is not right to mandate a legal quota for only one of those groups and not the others. Nor would it be right to install a one-size-fits-all solution for all countries, and all political parties within them.

I am pleased to report that the proportion of women in the British MEP group, and who are MPs in Westminster, has risen steadily over the years. I hope and expect that those figures will keep rising, but the mechanics used to achieve those outcomes have been understandably different in each political party, depending on our respective beliefs and traditions. Some use quotas, some use targeted selections and others use zipped candidate lists. Mandating a single approach and forbidding all others risks missing out on opportunities to move faster, and to reflect changing societal views. Importantly, it takes no account of different approaches across other European countries.

The European Scrutiny Committee has highlighted the proposal that, for all member states, a common deadline should be set for registering to vote at European elections and for candidates to submit their nomination papers. The deadlines would be eight weeks and 12 weeks before polling day, respectively. The suggested deadlines would be considerably earlier than the existing deadlines for those actions at UK elections.

This week is national voter registration drive week. We are trying, on a cross-party, cross-community basis, to improve and increase voter registration, not reduce it. The proposals would make it hard to sign people up and add complexity to a UK system that desperately needs simplification and clarity. They would, I am afraid, move us in precisely the wrong direction.

The European Parliament has proposed that member states should consider adopting electronic voting at European elections. We recognise that the European Parliament is seeking to encourage participation. However, there are serious concerns that electronic voting is not yet sufficiently transparent or secure. In many parts of our lives, more and more communications and transactions take place online, and that change is happening quickly, but we are not yet sure about the security and safety of electronic voting. The risks are inevitably high if we are talking about an attempt to steal the government of a country or influence the leadership of a continent. We have to be conscious of cyber-security risks and the serious threats they might present to the integrity of an election where electronic voting is more widely available.

Currently, the Government have no plans to introduce online voting in UK elections, although we are keeping a close watch on the technology as it develops. I certainly agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the decision to adopt this method of voting should be taken by individual member states, not at EU level. The European Parliament has proposed the introduction of a threshold ranging between 3% and 5% for candidates elected at European elections. That proposal may stem from concerns that it is possible for extreme parties to win MEP seats on a small share of the vote in some countries. The UK does not generally have provision for thresholds in its statutory elections, and in principle does not support them, as they can be seen as undemocratic, although it is realised that a party or a candidate, in practice, needs to secure a certain level of support in order to be elected. However, the UK would not fall within the scope of these proposals, which apply only in countries with only one constituency, or constituencies with more than 26 seats. We have 12 constituencies; the largest has 10 MEPs, so it is very unlikely that, under the existing provisions, we would qualify and this would affect us.

The European Parliament has proposed that ballot papers and campaign material should show any UK party’s affiliation with European parties, should they wish, during the course of an election campaign. I suspect the Committee will be unsurprised to learn that UK political parties have, by and large, chosen not to follow this approach, for reasons which I think are rather clear—because it would not be a popular move, and would quite possibly lose them votes. Rather than mandating this idea in law, I think we might suggest that Brussels consider why this might be unpopular, as it would tell them something rather profound, I think, about some of the EU’s underlying problems.

The European Parliament has also proposed changes to the way in which the President of the European Commission is selected—the so called spitzenkandidaten process. The position of President of the European Commission is very important, so any proposed changes need to be closely scrutinised. If there are to be changes in the way this post is selected, the changes must be seen as wanted and necessary by all member states. Consensus is vital.

The Government remain of the view that selection of the Commission President should remain a European Council decision and based on current EU law. The Government have been consistent in stating that it is the prerogative of the European Council to select the candidate for President of the Commission, and I welcome the views of the House on the recommended changes from the European Parliament to this process.

The final measure is ratifying these measures. The European Parliament has suggested that this should be done by qualified majority voting, rather than through unanimity, which is how things are currently decided. As has been stated by the Government, we are making decisions that affect all of Europe. Consensus among member states is vital, and this must be reflected in the decision-making process—or to put it another way, no.

I hope that I have reassured the Committee on a number of points raised by these proposals, and shown that the Government share the Committee’s concerns that a number of the proposed measures do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity either. As I have explained to the Committee, the Government will wish to look at the proposed measures carefully. We are not committed to agreeing to any of them, and would need to be fully persuaded of the merits of any of the proposals before agreeing to take them forward with other member states across the EU. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ comments.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Howarth, to serve under your chairmanship. For 10 years I was a Member of the European Parliament.

[John Penrose]

Our deepest condolences.

[Wayne David]

I hope I have recovered from that experience, but obviously I have learned from it. Certainly by the end of the 10 years I was there, I was a convinced European—and still am. I think Britain’s future lies in co-operation with our European partners, and that makes good practical sense, in the modern world especially. But I have to say that does not make me uncritical of the European Union—indeed, I am not uncritical of the European Parliament.

One of the concerns I had then, and still have now, is about the desire of the European Parliament, as an institution, to continually obtain more powers for itself, almost irrespective of the subject under consideration. The automatic position was to gain more powers. Sometimes that is correct, but quite often it is incorrect, because I firmly believe that the European Union fundamentally is an association of independent, democratic states, which come together and pool their sovereignty from time to time, where appropriate. I think that is the essence of the European Union, and I think that should be respected by all the member states, but also all the institutions that make up the European Union.

Fundamental to that concept of the European Union is the principle of subsidiarity. Decisions should be taken at the most appropriate level, but as close to the people as possible. That implies a clear role in the construction of Europe for local and regional government, but also member states, and also, where appropriate, the institutions of the European Union. Given that over the past few years the principle of subsidiarity has become, by common consent, more and more important, the European Scrutiny Committee believes that, on this occasion, the Government have not attached sufficient weight to it. That worries me greatly, because although I do not agree with the European Scrutiny Committee on everything, nevertheless I recognise that a great deal of time, effort and detailed consideration have gone into its deliberations. It worries me that, in its view, the Government have not paid sufficient attention to that principle.

Equally, it also worries me that the European Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the Government have not given due weight to the financial implications of the European Parliament’s suggestions. All the measures are practical and they have a cost implication. It is very important that when the Government set out their case, they consider the financial ramifications. Unfortunately, the Minister has not really touched on those, and I hope that he will have an opportunity in the debate to give us some indication of the cost implications should the measures be adopted in part or in whole.

I am also concerned about the European Parliament’s innate desire always to accrue more powers for members of that Parliament. Linked to that is my concern that, all too often, the European Parliament believes in the desirability of uniformity across member states. Of course, one of the great things about Europe is that it is a celebration of diversity, and we should not only recognise that but be proud of it. That certainly holds in terms of our commitment to democracy. We are all in favour of the universal franchise. In the case of the European Parliament elections, we have all signed up to a system of proportional representation for elected Members of the European Parliaments, but that differs markedly from one member state to another, as does the system of election. There are certain traditions and practical reasons why that should be the case, and therefore I am concerned that the European Parliament should propose basically a straitjacket by suggesting that all member states should adhere to a rigid set of proposals that the Parliament thinks is appropriate. I do not think that there is any logical, intellectual reason for that bland uniform approach. It would be far better to adhere to the principle of recognising that there are different ways of conducting elections, domestic or for the European Parliament, in democratic countries.

Can the Minister tell us what is the member states’ position on this, in particular that of the British Government? What is the role of the European Commission, because I understand that it is currently engaged in its own review of the last European Parliament elections, and that it will make proposals to improve the system in respect of next elections to that Parliament? The European Commission has its own proposals, but the European Parliament, another European institution, has its proposals as well. It will be interesting to hear how those two sets of proposals fit together, assuming that they do, and what the response of the Council, representing the member states, will be to that other institution’s response.

More specifically—I do not want to go through all the points listed by the Minister that have been made by the European Parliament—I shall focus on two points. First, on electronic and postal voting, as the Minister said, postal voting is used widely in this country and, increasingly so in the past few years. Not only is it popular but it is an effective way for voters to express their democratic view. Clearly, on electronic voting, there are cost implications and, as he suggested, there are security implications too. I do not think that technology is sufficiently advanced for me to say, hand on heart, that it is possible, perhaps in any member state, to have a watertight system that would ensure full participation along with security and confidence in the system.

Will the Minister look to the future and say whether or not the Government are considering more generally the issue of online voting to enhance the democratic process in this country? We are all surprised by the way in which technology has advanced in the past few years, and the Government should give active consideration to whether that is a feasible option in the not too distant future.

I should also like to raise the issue of the President of the European Commission and the spitzenkandidaten. To be honest, I was slightly confused when I read the recommendation from the European Parliament. I understood the first proposal that European Parliament elections should be contested by formal EU-wide lead candidates, but I did not understand precisely what was meant when I read that a joint constituency should be established in which lists were headed by each political family’s candidate. The Government are not inclined to adopt any of these suggestions, but will the Minister shed some light on what the European Parliament meant? On the face of it, it appears to be a radical suggestion that is not in keeping with custom and practice in most member states, and certainly not in this country.

I would appreciate clarification on those points, and I should like in general terms to have a cast-iron commitment from the Government that they will do everything possible, rather than simply waiting until the end of the process and exercising a veto, to engage actively with other member states, which I am sure share our concerns that the proposals should be put to one side, so that the EU can focus on more consensual and immediate matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I shall try to respond briefly to the points that have been raised. In spite of the slightly different starting precepts of the various contributions, there is a fair amount of cross-party agreement in the Committee. We all cleave to and support pretty strongly the notion of subsidiarity—the principle that things should be done at the place closest to the citizen, whether at a local elected level, a regional elected level or at a national level. Only when something requires international co-operation should sovereignty be voluntarily pooled as part of that process.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I have a specific question: how many other nations does the Minister think will also veto this proposal?

[John Penrose]

It is a little early in the process to have a precise count. However, I am told that the mood music from other capitals around Europe is that they are equally concerned and that many other countries share our point of view on most if not all of these proposals. We do not need a huge degree of consensus, because, as we have all observed, there is a veto, but we are far from alone on this matter. I hope that the Committee is reassured by the fact that many other countries share the view that has been widely expressed, which is that there is no such thing currently as a European polity—a European demos.

As the hon. Member for Caerphilly pointed out, we are a diverse continent, with many different points of view and many different inheritances and traditions. We are hugely religiously diverse, ranging from Catholic and Orthodox Christians to many other more newly arrived religions as well. We are enormously different in our heritage and in our attitudes, so it would be perverse for us to assume that a one-size-fits-all solution is either desirable or likely to be effective. Neatness is an outcome that is usually beloved only of accountants and lawyers and very rarely something that politicians should go for as a starting point. I share his suspicion of something that comes out as a one-size-fits-all solution across Europe. It is very revealing that he, as a former Member of the European Parliament, feels so strongly in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman asked about finances. It is rather early in the process to have a precise, detailed accounting, but as we are politely but pretty firmly demurring from most of the contents of this proposal, we hope not to get to the point at which the finances become relevant, because we do not want this to happen in the first place, but should we get to that point in the process, of course we would have to add up which bits would cost money and which would not.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the role of the Commission, which I think he had heard was analysing the results of previous elections. I am not familiar with that process or with any proposals; I do not think that any proposals have been issued from there at all so far. I guess the point I would make is this, and it goes back to the points underlying the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. These proposals focus mainly on the plumbing of democracy—the dates on which the nomination papers need to be filled in, the way in which electoral registration is handled and the way in which elections are conducted. There will be a suspicion in this country and, I suspect, in many others that through changing the plumbing of European countries’ democracies, Brussels will be trying to advance the case of more Europe—the case of more Brussels.

I just gently suggest, both to everyone in the Committee and to the wider audience, that what is needed is not, in this case, changes to plumbing. What is needed is not plumbing, but poetry. People in Europe—certainly in this country and, I suspect, in many other countries—need to be persuaded of the benefits of Brussels. They need to be persuaded about why Brussels feels that it has something to add—the principle of added value—and to understand where it does not. At the moment, given the turnout in European parliamentary elections, it is clear that that poetry is lacking and that many people are not persuaded of the way in which Europe could, in its view, add value. Therefore, I suggest that focusing on the plumbing is not the answer. These proposals are not the solution. This will seem to many to be an attempt to achieve by stealth what cannot be achieved through honest, genuine democratic debate and persuasion.

If people were persuaded, if there were at some future point some kind of European demos, a shared European view on the benefits or demerits of more or less Europe, we would be able to have a much more straightforward, pan-European and honest democratic debate, but that is not where we are. It is not the direction of travel at the moment, because levels of trust in the European project have been falling more widely

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a shared concept of European democracy and that that was what defeated fascism in the second world war and totalitarian communism in the cold war? It is important, when we use poetry as a persuader to people here about the value of Europe, that we do not forget that legacy and that history.

[John Penrose]

That is a very important point and it illustrates the difference that I think we are all gesturing towards in the Committee. Despite all the different heritages around the geographic entity of this continent, the different approaches to how we do democracy, and the different hot buttons and persuasive issues in one country versus another, there is a common commitment to the concept of democracy. It is one of the things that is distinctive about the collective European countries, across the continent. However, we do not all do it in the same way. There is a huge difference between a commitment to the principle and an acceptance that we all think about things in the same way, do them in the same way and cleave to the same issues in, for example, Finland, Spain, Greece or Britain. It is vital not to forget that distinction.

Additionally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly asked me about e-voting and about spitzenkandidaten. I agree with him that e-voting is not yet safe. He asked about the future. What this Government want to do—I hope future Governments do too—is to keep a close eye on the way in which the technology is developing. In the past few years, we have all become used to doing our banking and all other kinds of transactions online. Life is becoming more online and more e-enabled. I suspect we will increasingly look at our voting process and say, “Why can’t that be more online and more like the rest of our lives?” The crucial thing, however, is that because the risks of an e-election are that much higher and the notion of stealing the government of a city, a country or even the leadership of a continent is so profound, we would need to be really, really sure about the security of the technology used and treat it with great care, even though the advantages are manifest in many other parts of our life. We will therefore want to keep close tabs on how that develops and to weigh up the balance of risks and rewards.

Finally, the hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about the details of the EU proposals on how the spitzenkandidaten process could be changed. I could not begin to think myself into the heads of the people who made the proposals in the EU documentation, particularly because the Government oppose those proposals on principle. I am afraid he will have to ask those people what their proposals would involve and why they think the proposals are good. I hope that everyone here has had a relatively clear answer from the Government—it is fairly clear on both sides of the House more broadly—that we do not think those proposals are a sensible idea and that we would not want to go ahead with spitzenkandidaten. With that, I hope I have responded to everyone’s questions and queries.

[The Chair]

The question is on the motion, which I note does not set up a binary choice between plumbing and poetry.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Committee takes note of Unnumbered European Union Documents, a European Parliament Resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union, and a Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the provisions amending the Act concerning the election of members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage; supports the Government’s initial view that it is not persuaded of the merits of many of the proposed measures, and that a number of the proposals concern issues that should be decided at a national level; further notes that there is a power of national veto in respect of the European Parliament’s Proposal, and that the Government is therefore not committed to agreeing to any of the proposed measures; and considers that the Proposed Council Decision does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in annex 2 to Chapter 1 of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 342-xviii) and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

draft Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) regulations 2016

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to have you in charge of us this afternoon, Mr Nuttall.

Members of the Committee might recall the passage of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 during the previous Parliament. The Act set out three conditions that could result in a recall petition being triggered, with the potential result of an MP losing their seat and a by-election being held. The regulations fill in the fine details, with what electoral administrators call the conduct rules. They set out how a petition can be conducted, the signing arrangements, the mechanism for challenging the outcome and the creation of offences in relation to a petition.

The regulations are comprehensive, as their length and weight shows, and they are broadly the same as the election rules—particularly those for by-elections—with which we are all already familiar, with minor modifications to cater for differences such as that of the petition being open for six weeks. The read-across from by-election rules and regulations to petition regulations will, I hope, be clear for everyone here. The regulations reflect extensive consultation with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, returning officers, electoral registration officers, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, and comprehensive user testing has been undertaken on the key petition forms.

The regulations are extremely long and detailed, coming in at well over 100 pages, and since I am sure that everyone here will have read them in detail, in advance, I will not bore the Committee by going through them all now, but it might help if I briefly summarised them.

Part 1 sets out how the regulations apply to the different parts of the UK and also gives an interpretation of the common phrases contained in the different chapters. Part 2 deals with compiling a register of those eligible to sign a petition—equivalent to the electoral roll—and also with how such a register should be published three days before the start of a petition and be available for public inspection. The petition officer must publish the number of people allowed to sign the petition and the number that must sign for it to be successful. Those figures will be updated when a petition opens, to include any alterations to the electoral register because of last-minute applications made on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice.

Part 3 forms the substantial part of the regulations. It deals with the conduct of a petition, and is broken into several chapters. Chapter 1 deals with general provisions such as the signing sheet and the official mark. The signing sheet is based on an election ballot paper. Each person wishing to add their name to a petition will sign an individual sheet and the sheets will then be counted in a fashion rather similar to that used for election ballot papers, to find out whether the petition has been successful.

Chapter 2 sets out the steps that the petition officer must take before a petition is available for signing. The regulations stipulate that a petition must be available for signing on each working day during the signing period—Monday to Friday, between 9 am and 5 pm. Additionally, the petition officer must make “reasonable” provision for the petition to be available for signing outside those times, which could include evenings and weekends. The regulations do not prescribe what the additional hours must be; they will be determined by local circumstances and covered by Electoral Commission guidance.

The petition officer is also required to issue official petition notices, so that electors know how to participate and know that signing is optional. The notices are in the form of letters and can be found in schedule 2. I can confirm that the wording has been user tested with members of the public at various locations across the UK, including with Welsh speakers.

Chapter 3 sets out the manner in which the petition is to be administered at the signing place, including regarding who can enter such a place, the delivery and receipt of signing sheets, and daily verification of the contents of the ballot box where electors will insert their completed sheets. Unlike at an election, accredited observers will not be allowed to be present at signing locations, or at any stage of the petition process other than the count. The reason is that, with a petition, only a single declaration can be made by signers. In other words, when they go into a petition-signing place, it is clear what they will do. It is not a question of a secret ballot where the vote is for one side or another. They will, by definition, be voting for just one side. A signer’s presence at a signing place will inevitably be seen as an indication of their preferred outcome and, as a result, accredited observers would inevitably compromise the secrecy of the petition-signing station.

Chapter 4 details when and how the count should be conducted, including the timing, which must be as soon as possible after a petition closes and no later than one day afterwards. Accredited observers may be present at the count, along with the representatives of the Electoral Commission. The MP and representatives of the political parties will have to be accredited observers to be able to observe the count. Once the count has concluded, the regulations require the petition officer to publish a notice of the outcome, including whether the petition was successful and the number of electors who validly signed it.

Part 4, which is concerned with absent signers, sets out the eligibility criteria for anyone wishing to sign by post or by proxy, namely that they are successfully registered as postal voters on or before the cut-off date for publishing the register, or that they have registered to sign a petition by post or proxy.

Part 5 prescribes the issue and receipt of postal signing sheets, along with who can observe the proceedings. That is restricted to the petition officer, his staff and representatives of the Electoral Commission. We have ruled out accredited observers from attending those sessions as there is a need to protect the details of anyone who has signed the petition.

Part 6 of the regulations creates a number of offences relating to the petition process. The offences are created in line with those already in existence for other elections. Part 7 contains miscellaneous provisions, the most significant of which covers how to question the outcome of a petition. Broadly, it can be questioned by the MP subject to the petition process or any of his or her constituents if they believe that there was

“an undue outcome of the petition”.

A petition court examining a complaint brought within 21 days of the announcement of the outcome of the petition will have the power to void the result of that petition. If a complaint is brought after that period, a petition court may still convene, but it will not have the power to void the result.

In the previous Parliament, both governing parties and the Opposition all had manifesto commitments to introduce a power of recall. The Government continue to believe that this is one of many vital steps to help restore the public’s trust in politicians and the functioning of the House of Commons. The regulations, which will deliver that commitment, comprise a comprehensive set of provisions that will allow petitions to be administered fairly and effectively. With that mercifully brief summary of a very large wodge of regulations, I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I will endeavour to respond to each of those points as we go, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will interject if he feels that I am skating too lightly over any particular point of detail.

First, I offer huge congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on being one of the very few other people who have actually read this whole thing, including right down to the end of paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum. That attention to detail is very impressive indeed.

Let me start with the hon. Gentleman’s point about signing by post. He will be aware that during any election there is a process, which is normally condensed into a single day, when people who have voted by post can, in theory, turn up on the day of the poll with their postal vote form and present it, saying, “I am eligible to vote by post, but I am choosing to vote in person. Here is my postal vote form.” They hand it in at the polling station and that is then a valid vote.

The signing process takes place over a period of up to six weeks, and there will therefore have to be a continuous check to ensure that, when we get to the end, people have not had a chance to sign twice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, normally the registration forms that are held at individual local polling stations are adjusted to make sure that it is clear whether someone has a postal vote, so that the person who issues the ballot papers can make the necessary checks if required and then the necessary reconciliations can be made.

We will have to make sure that, in the case of signatories, the necessary reconciliations can happen, albeit over a longer period—so it is actually easier in some respects to ensure sure that these checks are being made. It should be easier to make sure that people cannot sign twice, in the same way that we do not allow people to vote twice on a polling day. However, the checks and the principle underlying the process—the mechanics—will, of course, still be the same

The hon. Gentleman asked about running totals during the signing period of six weeks. He asked specifically about the final sentence in paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum. It might help the Committee if I read the entire sentence, which I think is clear. However, if it is not clear, we may need to adjust latter guidelines and so forth to make sure that it is clear. The sentence reads:

“Importantly, the results of daily verification will not be made public so as to allow for a tally to be made on the number of persons that have signed the petition.”

Providing that the emphasis is put in the right place as one reads that sentence out, I think that it is clear that the results are not being made public so that people cannot do that. However, if it later seems that there is scope for confusion among people outside this place, of course we will need to make sure that any advice and guidelines are adjusted as we go.

[Wayne David]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but having spoken to a number of people, I know that they share my concern that that is slightly unclear, at the very least, and slightly ambiguous. It would be helpful if he went away and devised a clearer form of words so that we do not have that ambiguity.

[John Penrose]

We will try to ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for further guidelines to be issued by bodies such as the Electoral Commission. We need to make sure that everyone is aware of this particular important point, so that future guidelines and commentary are as clear as they can possibly be.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a number of points that the Electoral Commission had suggested. While we followed the commission’s advice in many areas, there were two areas where we differed slightly.

One was on the question of accredited observers and where they will be allowed to observe. We decided that they should be allowed in to things such as the count and so on and so forth, but not to the actual signing places themselves because, as I mentioned in my initial remarks, the difference between an election and a petition is that, if someone goes in to sign a petition, it is very clear which side of the argument they are on. Therefore, one of the central principles of our democracy—that every ballot should be secret—is very hard to maintain given the fact that, if someone goes in to sign a petition, they are, by definition, on one side, and if they do not turn up, they are on the other side. We thought that the danger of eroding the secrecy of the ballot box in an election, and not maintaining that properly in a petition, was quite great, and therefore we felt that it was inappropriate to have people observing that stage. Once a petition has been signed and safely consigned to the petition box, it becomes anonymous, and at later points in the process it is therefore safer to have accredited observers, such as at the count, in the way that the hon. Gentleman and I have just discussed.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister clarify what would happen if a person went along to the signing station and signed the petition, but then decided to spoil their paper? Would their vote be counted one way or another?

[John Penrose]

The regulations lay out what has to happen. In the same way as for people who spoil a ballot paper in a regular election, I presume there will be the equivalent of a bad and doubtful ballot paper process, which the hon. Gentleman and I, and I am sure every other candidate, has had to go through—it would have to be clear that a clear opinion and a clear intention has been produced. If that is not clear on the signing sheet, the presiding officer will have to take a view, and presumably the accredited observers in the room will also have to have a look. Broadly speaking, the same underlying principle, which is that a clear intention has to be visible, will be applied here, too.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about user testing the notice letters versus the notice cards. When the petition is first begun, we need to make sure that everybody knows that they can sign, but not that they need to sign, particularly if they disagree and feel that the MP concerned should not be subject to a recall by-election. As I mentioned earlier, the content of the words has been extensively user tested. As a secondary, follow-up point, he said that he feels that some of those words are perhaps a little verbose. All I can say is that they were extensively user tested. They may be longer than he and I might have started off with, but they were felt to be the ones that worked, with feedback from genuine voters, which is probably the safest and most fact-based approach that we could possibly take. The content was extensively user tested.

We went with letters rather than cards, principally to distinguish a petition from a poll. Clearly, many people will understand that those of us who are democratically responsive and responsible feel a certain duty to go and use our democratic rights when it comes to a poll, and we do not want to establish that when it comes to a petition because the very fact of feeling under pressure to go to sign a petition actually pushes people towards one side of the argument rather than the other, which could, if done wrongly, prejudice the underlying fairness of the petition. The letter was therefore felt appropriate, having road tested the contents of the piece of paper to ensure that its format is clearly different from a poll notice card so that people will have an additional, perhaps even subconscious, mental cue that this is not quite the same as an election, albeit that it is similar in many respects.

[Wayne David]

I agree with much of what the Minister says but, nevertheless, he is talking about a letter being used for the first time, rather than a polling card. As he tested the words on the poll card, surely it would have been sensible to test the words on the letter, too.

[John Penrose]

I find myself in something of a cleft stick at this point, because the hon. Gentleman and all here will realise that we are now several months on from the end of the last Parliament. Everybody here wants to ensure that the Recall of MPs Act 2015 is fully in force promptly. We can carry on testing things until we are blue in the face, but we have tested an awful lot of this in huge detail and with huge care. At some point we have to stop testing and start doing. I am not aware, and I am sure he is not aware, of any pending cases, but it would be truly contrary to the spirit of democracy—he and I would both be very upset were this to happen—were we still to be dotting i’s and crossing t’s on this stuff if a case came up tomorrow, next week or soon without these regulations being in place. Both he and I would be accused of dereliction of duty were that to happen. We have tested the substance, the guts, of this in huge detail. If it later transpires that there is some question over this, of course we can come back to it, but at some point we just have to get on with it. Otherwise we will be accused of delaying things in an attempt to protect the livelihood of MPs, which of course is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about Welsh forms. I am sad to hear that my ignorance of the language of heaven is perhaps only exceeded by his, but I can reassure him that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments now includes a Welsh speaker. I am not sure whether that member is familiar with what I hesitate to call the Queen’s Welsh.

[Wayne David]

BBC Welsh.

[John Penrose]

BBC Welsh, as opposed to more colloquial Welsh. I am not sure whether that Welsh speaker can do either or both, but it is noticeable that the JCSI’s scrutiny of such things has moved up a notch since that has happened. We are therefore probably better placed than we ever have been. Beyond that, as the hon. Gentleman might expect, we check with a number of other Welsh translation services, too. We have covered as many bases as we humanly can but, given the fact that neither he nor I are quite as fluent in Welsh as might be required to make this perfect, we will have to take it on trust. I am sure that the Welsh people will let us know very loudly if they feel that we have let them down in any way, but I hope that we have not.

Question put and agreed to.

House of Lords Reform

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I think he said that it was his beginners plea when he made his case, but he knocked any sense of being a beginner into a cocked hat with his speech. He hoped that we would forgive his tendency for Celtic hyperventilation—I think that was the phrase he used. He was also kind enough to mention that he counted Wales and certainly Cornwall as part of the Celtic fringe. I may not represent Cornwall but I have a Cornish name, so I am glad to hear that he would include me in that group. I will try not to hyperventilate either, and the hon. Gentleman made a powerful and good case.

We also had the opportunity to compare and contrast our debate with the previous debate on space policy, which contained many quotes from David Bowie. In this debate we had many quotes from Robbie Burns. I will leave Members here present and those reading Hansard later to come to their own conclusions about the relative merits of those two bards, one ancient, one modern. I suspect that they will both be clasped firmly to different people’s hearts during this debate.

Let me echo a point made by a number of colleagues during the debate and ask: where on earth are the Liberal Democrats? Where have they got to?

[Martin John Docherty]

The House of Lords!

[John Penrose]

Many of them are in the House of Lords. They are reduced to a small number of MPs, and none of them is here today. I regard that as a real tragedy because in the last Parliament, and in previous Parliaments, they—they have not been the only ones—were pressing the case for reform of the Lords and other constitutional reform. All of a sudden, when they are hugely over-represented in the House of Lords relative to their representation in this House, they are nowhere to be seen. They are Macavity’s cat when it comes to reform of the Lords and this debate. That is a tragedy, and people will draw their own conclusions about their relative levels of interest.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire encapsulated a series of criticisms about the Lords, which have been widely echoed by many Members. I will not go through them all in huge detail when summing up the debate, but broadly speaking he made the point in a variety of different ways that the level of democratic legitimacy in the House of Lords is incredibly low. The only group that are elected are the 92 hereditary peers, and they are elected from an electoral college.

There are other criticisms—that the House of Lords is very large, and the bishops and hereditaries should not be there—that buttress the central charge of a lack of legitimacy and democratic principle in the Lords as it is currently constituted. I agree and that is reflected in my personal voting record on the issue. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned the series of votes on the issue in the 2005 Parliament. It was my first Parliament and I voted consistently for anything that would increase the level of democratic involvement in the House of Lords. In the 2010 Parliament, we had an incredibly long and drawn-out attempt to reform the House of Lords. I do not think that anyone could claim that there was not a determined attempt—probably the most determined attempt for several generations—to reform the House of Lords and to make it more democratically legitimate. I voted consistently throughout for those reforms, even though the form of election might not necessarily have been to everybody’s taste—even mine. They were a step in the right direction, however, or at least they would have been had they been passed. I cannot argue, therefore, either from a personal or Government point of view, that the central charge is not valid. That is why the Conservative party’s election manifesto said we remain committed in principle to reform. Our approach is not driven by an opposition to the central charge made by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire and echoed by many other hon. Members today.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Minister talks about making the House of Lords more democratic, which is second-best to abolition. How will he deal with the real problem: prime ministerial patronage?

[John Penrose]

If I can ask the hon. Gentleman to hold his horses, I hope to come back to that later. I am sure he will pick me up on that if I do not address it sufficiently.

At this point, I should declare a small, non-financial family interest. A couple of years ago, my wife was appointed to the House of Lords. When she was appointed, I had to point out to her that I had a long track record of voting multiple times to abolish her, and anybody like her, from the House of Lords in due course. She has forgiven me and I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that relations over the family breakfast table are not too strained. However, I can reassure hon. Members that my personal views have not changed, despite the family involvement. Given the chance, I would vote to make them far more democratically legitimate.

I started by assuming, I think not necessarily entirely correctly, that the SNP was exclusively and purely a unicameralist party. I think we have heard support for that view during the debate from many SNP Members, the hon. Member for Luton North and, to some degree, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). I hope I am not putting words in anybody’s mouth, but I think I heard some degree of qualified willingness to at least consider a more democratically legitimate second Chamber as an alternative to the perhaps favoured unicameralist view.

[Peter Grant]

Just to clarify that point, the view of the SNP and the Scottish Government was that, had we won the referendum last year, we would not have needed a second Chamber in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament works effectively. This Parliament, in the view of the SNP, is not working effectively and so a second Chamber is beneficial, but it must be democratically elected.

[John Penrose]

That is very helpful in clarifying the SNP’s view and it leads me to talk about opportunities for reform. I, and the Government, would certainly favour keeping a second Chamber and making it more effective if the opportunity ever presented itself. There are huge advantages to having an effective second Chamber here. I say that because often the level of scrutiny imposed on any Government by the second Chamber is not a comfortable experience. It has not always been a comfortable experience for previous Labour, Conservative or even coalition Governments. Even though it is not necessarily easy or comfortable—on occasions it can be incredibly frustrating—I believe it is democratically justified and desirable, and that it results, at least in Westminster, in better law. I went along to the Lords yesterday and stood at the Bar, listening to its debate on the Strathclyde review. I challenge anybody to say it was not a high-quality and capable discussion, conducted at a high level and very clearly expressed. It has a great deal to offer, regardless of its legitimacy, and our democracy would be the poorer without a revising second Chamber.

As colleagues on both sides have said, however, we need to be careful about the Lords’ powers and composition. The problem is agreeing not on the need for reform but on how we do it. As the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) said, we should be discussing not whether change is needed but what kind of change could be achieved. That is where we all come up against a serious and fundamental practical problem. While many people agree that some kind of reform and improved democratic legitimacy for the upper House is vital, agreeing on its form and creating a democratic consensus about what it should look like—as opposed simply to agreeing that there should be something—is a great deal harder. And that is what politics is all about; it is about forging the necessary democratic consensus. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned the need for a democratic debate.

We need to forge a democratic consensus not on the need for change but on the form it should take. That is where the previous attempt in the last Parliament came unstuck. There were far too many competing recipes for what the revised House of Lords might look like and a plethora of different approaches. It came unstuck not because of a lack of ideas but because there were too many ideas and not enough people agreed on any one of them, and therefore the opponents of reform won through.

[Wayne David]

I agree with the Minister. Do we not need to learn the lesson that, if any good fundamental reform is to take place successfully, there must be cross-party dialogue and debate and an attempt to find consensus across the House?

[John Penrose]

I would broaden out that point. It is hugely helpful, although not essential, for any constitutional change to be made with some cross-party agreement, if only because—this is one of the fundamental points of Britain’s unwritten constitution—people need to be happy not just with how things work when they are in government but when the shoe is on the other foot and they are in opposition, because they need to bear it in mind that at some point they might not be in government. Good Governments and good Oppositions remember that point and proceed with caution and agreement wherever possible. It is not always possible, but when it can be done, it should be.

The challenge is not to agree that change is necessary but to define precisely what form it should take and to form a sufficiently large consensus to overcome the forces of inertia, which, if we are not careful, naturally tend to win—I do not know whether it is inertia or entropy, but either way, it is what happened last time.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister agree that part of the difficulty in arriving at a consensus is the many vested interests served by the Lords and the history of the appointees to it? It would be useful to bring in members of the public to open up the outlook on what a new constitutional arrangement might be.

[John Penrose]

That is one of the principles that underlie the support of the many people who are in favour of an increase in democratic legitimacy. With a democratically elected second Chamber, it is much, much harder for the forces of reaction and special interests to win through, because the antidote to most of those things is normally greater democratic involvement. So I think the hon. Lady’s question enclosed its own answer, if I can put it that way; I certainly support her point.

Our problem therefore is choosing—not if, but how. There are currently too many different forms of possible election that could be looked at. There is the alternative vote, for example, and dozens of different forms of proportional representation. I regularly get letters from people who are cleaving to one or more of dozens of different kinds of electoral system. I am not sure what the democratic consensus would be on which one would be right, but I know that without a democratic consensus on choosing one, we will not be able to win the argument and get it done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) interestingly suggested something based on occupation rather than on geographical constituencies, and all these ideas are possible. They would all create alternative franchises that would not clash directly with the one used for this Chamber. Finding a non-clashing democratic mandate would be an advantage, but until such a thing can be done, we are inevitably on the back foot.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hope the Minister is not saying that because it is so difficult, we should not do it. As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) suggested, now might be a good time for this Conservative Government to think about taking this forward. If hardly any Members keen to maintain the House of Lords in its current form are willing to pitch up, it clearly means that there is an appetite for reform. Now is the time.

[John Penrose]

The hon. Lady made a series of powerful points, many of which I agreed with, but on that particular one I am respectfully going to disagree with her for a couple of reasons. We have heard from a number of different sides that the level of unprompted interest in the Dog and Duck in reform of the House of Lords is remarkably low. It might be quite high if we went along to the Bishops Bar, but that is probably the only bar in the entire country where that topic of conversation would come up naturally. Members of all parties are right to say that, when prompted, many people will agree that it is important to reform the Lords in some way. Without that prompt, however, it ranks a long way down people’s lists of priorities.

We need to form and forge a democratic consensus, but it is difficult for all of us to do so when the issue is low down the list of priorities because other things are more urgent, more immediate or loom larger. It would be wrong to overstate the appetite for reform and wrong to ignore the practical difficulties of achieving it. I do not want to assume that because something is desirable but not simple, it can therefore be wished for and produced with a wave of a magic wand. We all understand, as elected politicians, how hard this is, and we can all see the trail of failed attempts to make big reform changes. We have seen how difficult equally talented politicians, some of them extremely talented politicians, have found it.

That said, there is a possibility for smaller steps to be made. In the last Parliament, there was a series of small reforms. I do not want to let anyone get the impression that we think that small reforms are a substitute for more thoroughgoing things, but in many cases they represent progress in the right direction. It would wrong to let the best be the enemy of the good. When in the last Parliament, the House of Lords chose to change the rules on the retirement of its Members, this House agreed with it and it was a step in the right direction.

Many other issues are currently being discussed in the House of Lords, led by senior parliamentarians at that end of the building, including further reduction of the size of the House of Lords, looking at retirement ages and doing all sorts of other things. Those might not be to everybody’s taste as a complete answer—many certainly do not deal with the point about democratic legitimacy—but they are steps in the right direction, and I think we should encourage their Lordships to proceed with them. We must not be guilty of saying that just because it does not fulfil our perfect world scenario, we should not give it at least the time of day.

I encourage House of Lords Members as well as hon. Members here present and others elsewhere—anybody who is interested—to try to address the question of how to achieve greater democratic legitimacy. What kind of franchise can be chosen that will not clash with the franchise of this Chamber? What levels of powers do we think should be approved for the upper Chamber?

Incidentally, there has been some criticism of the Strathclyde review today. Let me gently suggest to those who are critical that, while they may wish that the review had a broader mandate, at its heart is the aim of making the primacy of the elected House apply. I hope that Members can at least agree that that is desirable. The outcome will of course depend on which of the options are followed, but the current formulation would move us towards a much more regularised and clearly defined system of powers between this House and the upper House. A series of options are being considered in respect of the length of stay of those who are currently in the upper House, under the existing system, along with such matters as retirement ages. All those things are vital, but if we are to have reform, I urge all Members who are present today to try to create a democratic debate, and perhaps form a democratic consensus, with the aim of reaching a conclusion.

I want to give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire a chance to sum up the debate for a couple of minutes—and perhaps to give us a little bit more Robbie Burns; I do not know—so I shall do something unusual for a politician, and sit down and keep quiet. I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their useful and thoughtful contributions. I should also respond to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), because he asked me particularly to do so. He made a number of specific suggestions about people who might or might not be appointed to the House of Lords. I will take that as a submission, and will relay it to those in the House of Lords so that they can consider it as part of their current deliberations.

I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire sum up the debate.

[Martin John Docherty]

I thank the Minister for participating in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for informing the House about how we can make progress in the reform of an upper Chamber. I should make it clear, however, that for me and for my fellow SNP Members, the mandate from the constituencies of Scotland is that the reform must begin with the abolition of an unelected, unaccountable peerage which can generate legislation in that other place.

I also thank the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I managed to say that very quickly—my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is no longer in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson), who I know is about to leave the Chamber to go home, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who did much of the groundwork for the debate.

Let me now place before the Minister a couple of caveats on reform. The appointment of ex-Members of this place should be forbidden for a minimum of 10 years. It is abhorrent that those who are thrown out of public office by the electorate can be duly thrown into the upper Chamber. The 26 archbishops and bishops of the Church of England should be removed immediately and prevented from debating the legislation of the civic and religious life of Scotland.

[John Penrose]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point about former MPs? Would he draw any distinction between those who were defeated and those who have retired?

[Martin John Docherty]

No.

Members of the House of Lords should be automatically forced to retire by the age of 80. Even members of the Roman Curia are forced to retire as cardinals of the Roman Church. Fundamental, real change requires abolition.

This is an issue in Scotland. It may not be seen as an issue in the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would have been present if he could have been—but to us it is an issue of inequality that is at the heart of our liberal democracy. I reject the House of Lords, because my constituents told me to reject it—for they are nothing, at that other end of the Corridor, but a bunch of sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beasties, and their time is up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered House of Lords reform,

Consultant Lobbyists Regulation

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act provides for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists. The statutory register came into force on 1 April 2015 and has increased transparency by requiring those who lobby on behalf of a third party to publicly disclose the names of their clients.

Section 22 of the Transparency Act provides that the costs of the register may be recovered from registrants via a charge. Today I have laid the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2015 which amend regulation 5 of the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists 2015 (SI 2015/379) to increase the annual charge per registered consultant lobbyist in connection with the maintenance of the register from £700 to £950.

[HCWS385]

Electoral Integrity and Absent Votes

John Penrose Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to have you looking after us this afternoon, Mrs Main; it is good to see you in the Chair.

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on securing this debate on a tremendously important issue, which is perhaps slightly more topical than when he originally tried to secure it. However, that just shows his foresight and that he has his finger on the pulse of the popular mood. I think all of us here agree that this is a very important issue, but we tend to blithely assume that things are all right because historically this country has had a democracy to be proud of. Of course, it is up to us as the current incumbents in that democracy to ensure that we continue to be alive to any threat to it, and therefore it is important that we continue to address this issue regularly.

May I also remind all present and anybody who analyses this debate in future that the right way to deal with allegations of electoral fraud of any kind is to take them to the police? That is absolutely essential. The police are the investigating authority, and they are the people who have the skills and the resources to investigate properly. It is essential for the health of our democracy that any concerns are reported properly, so that the police can get to work and get their teeth into anything that looks suspicious.

During the last four years, we have had a steady flow—not a huge rush, but a steady flow—of electoral fraud cases. There were 268 in 2011, 408 in 2012, 178 in 2013 and 272 in 2014. That is not a deluge, but it is not zero either, and there is some concern that there may be other cases that are not being properly reported and may be going under the radar, which I think is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough secured this debate.

If anyone present or anyone looking at this debate afterwards has any concerns and, specifically, any detailed recommendations about how the system could be improved—we have heard a number of suggestions from all quarters during the debate—I would encourage them to mention them without delay to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. My right hon. Friend is in the process of finalising his report and has collected recommendations on how to deal with electoral fraud. The Government will be waiting for that report to come to us. We will react to it once it is in our hands and we have had a chance to study it and consider its implications. It is an opportunity for anyone with concerns and, in particular, specific recommendations about how the system can be improved—goodness knows, no system is ever perfect—to strike now. The iron is, if not yet hot, then certainly getting pretty warm, and it will be hot shortly. Now is the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough also rightly mentioned that 9 million postal votes were cast. Concerns are regularly voiced—albeit not always necessarily evidenced beyond the 200 to 300 or so cases each year—about undue influence when postal votes are in the hands of the voter, particularly within families with a strong tradition of patriarchy. It is hard to prove whether that is happening, but the suspicions none the less persist. All of us in this room will no doubt have heard those suspicions voiced to us by colleagues in Parliament and by constituents.

It is absolutely right—I hope all of us here would sign up to this principle—that we should not assume that there is a necessary contradiction or choice between having an electoral system that allows any eligible elector who wants to cast their vote to do so cleanly, conveniently and easily, so that turnout is maximised to the greatest possible extent, and the notion that there should be reasonable checks to ensure that the person casting the vote is eligible, is the person they say they are and is not subject to unfair pressure or influence in any way. Those two principles are equally vital. If we start saying that one is subservient to the other, we are on an extremely slippery slope, democratically speaking. Both principles apply and are important, and anyone who tries to pretend that we need to compromise one at the expense of the other is on dangerous ground indeed.

One of the only points on which I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend was where he mentioned some turnout figures for successive general elections. He is absolutely right that general election turnouts have been higher in the past. I fear that factors other than the availability of postal votes may be involved in that. I suspect those factors are particularly to do with public attitudes to politics, public attitudes to politicians, dare I say it, and general levels of societal democratic engagement. There are probably more things going on than just the availability of postal votes, although I am sure he is absolutely right to point out that that is a factor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) expressed some concerns about voting in person and impersonation. He asked whether there should be polling station checks. Again, that will be covered by the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. I mention in passing that some recent photos appeared in the press of President Obama turning up to cast his vote in the American presidential elections—no prizes for guessing who he was voting for—and I was struck by the fact that he had to sign for his ballot paper when he got there. That is a different system from the one that applies in Northern Ireland that was referenced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). None the less, there are models elsewhere in the world that we could look at, always with an eye to the fact that we do not want to discourage legitimate voters from turning out.

[Jonathan Lord]

The Minister makes a good point about another way of doing things. Of course, we sign for our postal votes, and that is checked. There are 9 million postal voters, with 15% to 20% of the electorate now choosing to vote by post. If that 20% is being checked, why should the signature and validity of the ballot at the polling station not be checked?

[John Penrose]

We should take that as a further submission to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

Very briefly, but then I must try to finish.

[Nick Smith]

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has rightly outlined examples of voter fraud that, if true, should be addressed with the full force of the law. Does the Minister agree that any future electoral law should have the right mix of safeguards and things to encourage voter participation? Will he please look into the possibility of credit reference agencies providing extra data to boost voter registration?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned this issue to me in oral questions earlier today. I encouraged him then and encourage him now to provide me with further details of his proposal. I am very interested at looking into that matter. It is potentially useful. There are many other sources of data that can be used to verify registrations, and we want to look at them all if we can. In the modern digital world, it seems a sensible avenue to explore.

At the root of the debate, we have a contradiction. We have modest levels of electoral fraud cases—I have already given everyone the figures for the past three or four years—but we can all see that, in principle, our processes and controls are pretty light-touch. We can all think of theoretical ways in which someone might be able to indulge in electoral fraud, were they so minded. In all our minds, there will always be a nagging concern that even though there may not be that many electoral fraud cases, there could be a cohort of people that we are not aware of taking advantage of this relatively trust-based system. That is the concern behind this debate and the ongoing public debate. To summarise it in a sentence, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That is our concern.

I therefore want to reassure everyone that there is no complacency in the Government on this tremendously important issue. A number of people have mentioned in the course of the debate that there is some self-policing, because political rivals will naturally keep an eye on each other. That is good, but we have also heard examples of loopholes or potential flaws in the process that would allow some things to go unremarked, even where there is a strong political culture of rivalry. We should clearly consider applying the precautionary principle here, provided that we can do so with the satisfactory light touch.

What have we done so far? There has been the introduction of individual elector registration. ID is therefore verified and it makes inventing people a great deal harder. It also makes family influence and patriarchy less important. We have also made postal votes a great deal more controlled. People now have to put a signature on a postal vote, and every single signature is matched up when that postal vote is opened. There was an initial problem in Scotland, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) mentioned, but the system is now running much more smoothly. There is much greater security around polling stations too, which is essential, particularly when one reads some of the judgments about what was happening in Tower Hamlets.

Finally, I want to back up the point that a number of colleagues made about voter education. One of the most fundamental ways of guarding against undue influence, whether spiritual, familial or any other form, is to educate people from the earliest moment that their vote is genuinely secret and that they are absolutely entitled to tell anyone, whether they are a family member, religious leader or politician, to take a hike if they want to find out how someone voted or to influence the way they are planning to vote. That is an attitude of robust independence that we need to inculcate in all our young people and, if necessary, all adults too. With that, I will sit down to let my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough have a final word. I reiterate that if anyone wants to make any further comments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, his door is open.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Penrose Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

7. If he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of the transition to individual electoral registration.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

The Electoral Commission will publish its assessment of the first full registers under individual electoral registration next spring. In the meantime, I am delighted to inform the House that the transition to IER is now complete. Ghost entries of people who have died or moved house have been removed. We now have a register that is clean, more accurate and less vulnerable to fraud than ever before. This is a vital foundation stone as we move on to the next big challenge: finding people who are legally entitled to vote, but have never been on the register, such as expats, students and people in private rented accommodation, and persuading them to sign up.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for his response. University towns and cities are some of the areas worst affected by the Government’s rushed changes to IER. Will the Government allow universities to block-register their students this year?

[John Penrose]

I think the hon. Lady and I may mean slightly different things by block registration, but there is common ground, in that some very useful and effective new work is being done in places such as Sheffield, which is dramatically improving student registration rates. With any luck, we can take its example and persuade others to do the same.

[Gerald Jones]

The Electoral Commission states that 51% of 16 to 17-year-olds are registered, compared with 95% of those over 65. The Government have opposed votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the upcoming EU referendum, and they will not even ensure that young people have a voice. Why are they so indifferent to a whole generation?

[John Penrose]

We addressed that issue at some length yesterday when discussing the European Union Referendum Bill. This is the third or fourth time that the House has addressed that idea, and each time it has returned pretty solid majorities against it. The vote yesterday was because we did not think it sensible to change such a fundamental piece of the franchise for just one vote. That would leave us open to the charge of trying to sway the franchise for the EU referendum to favour one side or the other—something that I am sure no one would support.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I encourage my hon. Friend to consider postal voting? Leaving aside what may or may not have happened at the recent by-election, is it the case that registering for a postal vote is far too easy these days, which renders the whole system open to serious abuse?

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and large numbers of people are concerned about that issue. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) is at this moment considering a report, and if my hon. Friend has any suggestions about what should be in it, he is welcome to make them.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I am glad the Minister noticed that there was a parliamentary by-election in Oldham last week. When he carefully studies the figures he will see that there are 1,814 fewer voters in Oldham West and Royton than there were at the general election. If those figures are extrapolated across the country, they show that more than 1 million fewer people are registered than were a year ago. That was predicted; it has happened intentionally. By design, this Minister is responsible for silencing the voices of more than 1 million voters in Britain. How does he feel about being the only Minister in British history to disfranchise 1 million people?

[John Penrose]

I see that the conspiracy theorists are out in force this morning. The entries that will have been crossed off the register as a result of the introduction of individual elector registration—a measure that was supported in principle by the Labour party—will be those for people who have died or moved house. Anybody who is a legitimate elector and who has a pulse will have been confirmed on the electoral register. If anybody is worried that they may not be registered, they can register online before May—it takes under three minutes, which is less than the time needed to boil an egg—and they will get their vote.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

2. What steps the Government Digital Service is taking to ensure that Government Departments treat the Welsh and English languages equally on their websites when providing services in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of methods used to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

The Electoral Commission will publish its assessment of the 2015 annual canvass in spring next year. In the meantime, there is a growing acceptance that while the annual canvass is an essential tool in maintaining complete and accurate registers, the processes and techniques we use to undertake it look increasingly out of date. They were developed from an analogue, not digital, world. As I said in my speech to the Policy Exchange in October, we will look to give electoral registration officers more discretion to adapt their canvass activities in order to make the canvass more efficient and effective in future.

[Helen Hayes]

Only 6.4% of homeowners are not on the electoral register, yet for those living in rented accommodation this figure is a massive 36.7%. The Government have made, and are making, it harder for generation rent to get on the property ladder, or obtain a secure tenancy. Is that why the Government do not want to hear the voices of private renters in our democracy?

[John Penrose]

We absolutely do want to hear everybody’s voice in our democracy. One of the things we are aiming to do with the new approach, as I said in the speech I mentioned in my initial response, is look at other ways to make better contact with groups that are under-represented, and to make sure more of them use their voice and their democratic right.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On the topic of using other ways to contact people to register to vote, has the Minister considered using credit reference agencies as a way to boost electoral registration?

[John Penrose]

That is an intriguing and, to me, new idea. I would be very interested to hear anything more the hon. Gentleman has to suggest on that.

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes announced in the spending review and autumn statement 2015 on local services provided by the community and voluntary sector.

European Union Referendum Bill

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Since this House gave the Bill its Third Reading in September it has been thoroughly and extensively scrutinised by the Lords, and I should begin by paying tribute to them for their diligent and considered approach. For the most part, their scrutiny has been fruitful, and the Bill returns to the Commons improved in a great many ways. However, on one issue the Lords made a decision that differs fundamentally from the view of the Government and, indeed, of this House. The Lords amendment would lower the voting age for the referendum to 16. This topic has been debated and divided on repeatedly since the general election in May. This House has twice rejected a lower voting age in the Bill, and did so for a third time yesterday, with a healthy majority in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. We have had this debate many times since May.

Other colleagues wish to speak, so I shall be brief. In short, the Government are not at all sure that it is right to lower the voting age, and even if it were, this is not the right way to do so. The voting age for UK parliamentary elections is set at 18, as it is in most other democracies in Europe and around the world. The age of majority is a complex issue.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Scottish Parliament has lowered the voting age, so how does the Minister justify that position to my constituents who turn 16 in the next month? They will be able to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 and council elections in 2017, but they will be denied a vote in the referendum.

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections is rightly devolved and is a matter for Holyrood. This decision is to be taken in the House across the UK as a whole: it is not a devolved matter but a reserved one. While it is entirely open to the Holyrood Parliament to make decisions on its franchise—and we all honour its ability to do so—it is an inevitable result of devolution that there are different views in different parts of the country, locally nationally, if I can use that phrase, on different franchises.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the answer that the Minister has just given, does he not accept that the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum in Scotland went well and that voters behaved responsibly? We ought to take advantage of the interest of 16 and 17-year-olds and their knowledge of these matters to support the coming EU referendum as well.

[John Penrose]

That is an entirely justifiable point, and it is noticeable that the Scottish referendum resulted in an upwelling of democratic engagement, not just by 16 and 17-year-olds but right across the age spectrum. I do not think that democratic engagement and involvement are the only tests that we should apply, but they are a factor that may weigh on other people’s minds—the right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I do not think that that is enough on its own to justify changing the franchise either in the Bill or in other measures.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Penrose]

Let me make some progress and perhaps I can explain a little more.

As hon. Members will appreciate, a patchwork of restrictions applies to young people from the age of 16 all the way up to 21. There is no clear point at which a person becomes an adult, but it is at 18 that society usually draws the line. Even at 18 there are things young people cannot do. They must wait until 21 to adopt a child, supervise a learner driver, or drive a bus. In general, although I accept that this is not perfect, more things require parental consent for people under 18 than for people over 18. Joining the Army, getting married or having a drink in a pub at 16 need parental consent and approval. The vast majority of other decisions, where the consequences demand a careful, responsibly considered view, from serving on a jury to being tried as an adult, to holding a tenancy or mortgage, or buying a house all happen at 18. The Labour Government even raised the age for using a sunbed from 16 to 18. It surely cannot be right to argue that someone aged 16 cannot be trusted to decide on the risks of getting a tan, but can be trusted to choose who should govern the country.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

There is no defined age at which it would be reasonable for someone to be able to vote, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made the point that in Scotland people aged 16 were given a vote and they will have a vote in the future. Accepting that there is different decision making in the two places, how does the Minister explain to that young person that it is utterly legitimate for them to vote in Scottish Parliament and local government elections and in a referendum, but not in the EU referendum?

[John Penrose]

My answer to such a hypothetical voter in Scotland is the same as I gave earlier—a consequence of devolution is that the Holyrood Parliament is allowed and perfectly entitled to take its decisions on devolved matters. The Holyrood franchise is a devolved matter, but the EU referendum franchise and the general election franchise are a reserved matter for the entire country to decide and will cover the entire country as a result.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the European Union referendum is a once in a generation opportunity, and that for young people the outcome will have a direct impact on their rights as European Union citizens to live, work and study in other EU member states?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is right; the referendum will affect all of us, but the argument that he is advancing applies equally to 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and to 55-year-olds and 64-year-olds. So he is right, but I am not sure there is a compelling argument for reducing the age just to 16.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I will give way once more, then I must make progress.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I caution him, though, against invoking the somewhat patrician instincts of the Labour Government with regard to the use of sunbeds as a reason for denying 16-year-olds the vote now? He has given us the full list of links, but surely the one link that matters because it comes to the heart of what it is to be represented in this place is that at 16 people pay their taxes.

[John Penrose]

That idea has a long and distinguished history. People were throwing tea into the harbour in Boston, saying “No taxation without representation” a long time ago. However, the argument has grown weaker over time for a number of reasons. First, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who now pay income tax, though not zero, is a great deal lower than it used to be, partly at least because this Government and the previous one raised the threshold for income tax and also raised the school and training leaving age, so the number of people involved in paying income tax is significantly lower than it used to be. Secondly, there are now many more indirect taxes, so any six-year-old who buys whatever it may be will be paying VAT, among other things. Therefore the advent of indirect taxes rather weakens the logical foundations of that argument, one which I used to cleave to myself. I found myself in slightly uncomfortable positions as a result, because I realised that it was an eroded position.

Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it, for two reasons. First, changing the voting age should not be applied to a single vote, even—or perhaps especially—if it is as important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered for all elections collectively and in the round, not piecemeal on an ad hoc case-by-case basis. Given the understandable sensitivity surrounding the EU referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the “remain” or the “leave” campaign. That is why we have chosen to stick with the tried and tested proven general election franchise. If it is good enough for choosing the Government of this country, surely it is good enough for the referendum too, and we should not jiggle around with it for a one-off tactical advantage either way.

[Stephen Timms]

On that specific point, as far as I know nobody has made any such complaint about the result of the Scottish referendum. I do not understand why the Minister feels that if it was done in this case, that criticism would be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has in his own party people who are concerned and who will be on one side of the issue or the other during the referendum campaign. Equally, my party has people on both sides. There are huge sensitivities, even if they are not being voiced especially loudly at present, which need to be understood and honoured. We must make sure that this is seen as a studiously fair referendum which will therefore settle the issue for a very long time to come.

It is worth pointing out that young people themselves, the very people whose enfranchisement we are debating today, are not at all sure that that would be a good idea. The most recent polls show that although there is a reasonable majority of 16-year-olds in favour of this change, 17-year-olds do not support it overall, and just 36% of 18-year-olds are in favour. What that says about 18-year-olds’ opinion of their younger selves two years earlier I shall leave others to conclude. There is a solid majority against the change among all other adults over 18.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I will give way once more, then I will try to finish the point.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way even though he said he could not. Does he agree that in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, young people below the age of 25 were resolutely opposed to extending the franchise to under-18s. After the referendum they and almost everyone else in Scotland, including the leader of his own party in Scotland, very nearly unanimously agreed that it was the right thing to do: the doubters have been persuaded.

[John Penrose]

I hope I can come on to that point in the next part of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a solid majority across the country against this change among all adults, as well as among 18-year-olds and, to a lesser extent, 17-year-olds. That shows that this is not some great progressive cause where an oppressed minority is waiting to be liberated by enlightened public support; quite the opposite. The risk is that for those watching our debate outside the Chamber, it will seem like a Westminster bubble issue, a trendy obsession for an out of touch political class, rather than a burning social crusade with widespread democratic support. Even worse, there may be a suspicion that some are supporting the proposition because they feel that they could gain some tawdry tactical party political advantage from it for one side or the other. None of these reasons would strengthen or help us as we decide on an issue as important for our country’s future as whether we stay in the EU or leave. We should have no part in such suspicions.

Finally, I want to touch on the financial implications. Mr Speaker has certified that this Bill engages the Commons financial privilege because extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the referendum would cost extra. Cost is far from the only reason the Government disagree with the amendment but, for procedural reasons, the House is not able both to waive privilege and to disagree with the amendment, so I want to be clear. The Government disagree on principled as well as financial grounds with the proposal to lower the voting age.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

Once more, then I will stop and let others have a go.

[Mr Carmichael]

This is probably the most novel aspect of our debate today. It is, of course, for the Speaker to certify whether financial privilege is invoked or not, but it is for the Government to decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for exactly the same issue. What is different now?

[John Penrose]

I think I have just addressed that point. We cannot waive privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons. We therefore need to engage financial privilege, but I am taking the opportunity of this speech and this debate to make sure that those other issues are given an airing as well. I hasten to add that there is nothing new in this. There is a long-established precedent in this House. I shall leave it to the procedural experts to lecture us all on the historical antecedents of financial privilege. We are not creating any sort of unusual precedent here.

I have not sought to repeat or rebut every argument. As I said, the subject has been debated many times in the Chamber already. I have, I hope, given everybody a taste of the issues and stated the Government’s position. The House has expressed its view on this matter many times, and I ask us all to repeat that once more.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the Government’s proposal to reject Lords amendment 1 and to support the amendment passed by their lordships which extends the franchise for the European referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is an ongoing, more general debate about franchise extension, but today I want to concentrate on the case for extending the franchise to younger voters for this particular referendum. Constitutional referendums are not like general elections, which come about every five years, or local elections, which come about every year. It is 40 years since this issue was voted on in this country. Major constitutional referendums are a once-in-a-generation choice, perhaps a once in a lifetime choice, about the country’s future direction. Our contention is very simple: it is that the young people of this country deserve a say in the decision that will chart our country’s future.

draft European Parliamentary Elections (Miscellaneous Provisions) (United Kingdom and gibraltar) order 2015

John Penrose Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Miscellaneous Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2015.

It is good to have you in charge of our proceedings, Mr Hanson. I am glad that everyone has managed to tear themselves away from the autumn statement. I hope not to detain the Committee for terribly long, although obviously that will depend on whether there are any burning questions on this minor and technical order—I will happily answer questions if necessary.

The order relates to the functioning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA to its friends—as it applies in Gibraltar. The European Union Referendum Bill, which has just completed its Report stage in the House of Lords, will apply various provisions of PPERA relevant to Gibraltar matters. In drafting the Bill, and following discussions with the Government of Gibraltar, we have identified that certain references to Gibraltar legislation in PPERA are now out of date or otherwise inaccurate. I reassure everyone that the provisions are entirely technical and consequential, rather than making any substantive changes, but they are needed for good order. To ensure the effective functioning of future European parliamentary elections and the EU referendum, the order will deliver those changes.

The order also substitutes references to the House of Assembly of Gibraltar with references to the Gibraltar Parliament. The Gibraltar Parliament, as I am sure everyone here will know, replaced the House of Assembly of Gibraltar as a result of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006. Finally, the order also removes certain redundant transitional provisions that accounted for circumstances before the publication of the first version of the Gibraltar electoral register for the purpose of European parliamentary elections.

I reassure the Committee that, in accordance with our statutory duty, the Electoral Commission has also been consulted and has confirmed its contentment with the order. Officials have worked closely with the Government of Gibraltar in preparing this order, and the Government of Gibraltar are happy, too. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am glad to hear that the Opposition are supporting the regulations, and I am happy to answer the questions as part of that process. The hon. Gentleman made a point about electoral finance. Broadly speaking, the European Union Referendum Bill tries to ensure that the status of any kind of donor is on all fours, whether they start from Gibraltar or Devizes or anywhere else in the south-west. He is right to say that some of the legal background in Gibraltar is inevitably and necessarily different.

I am that sure the hon. Gentleman will have observed that in the EU Referendum Bill we have tried to apply the general principle that, no matter whether someone is making a donation from the UK or from Gibraltar, broadly the same principles apply in every case. Nothing about that is changed by anything in this set of provisions. I can reassure him that we are not doing anything that would alter any of that. I do not want to try your patience, Mr Hanson, by straying too far into the detail of the Bill, since that is a separate point. Broadly speaking, the principles laid out in the Bill are as I have said they are, and they are not altered by what we are discussing.

On the mandate of the Electoral Commission, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, unusually for referendums—is it referendums or referenda?—effectively the returning officer for a national poll of that kind is the head of the Electoral Commission. They have a legal position and duty in relation to referendums, which is normally taken by individual constituency returning officers and counting agents.

The entire referendum will be administered legally and led by the Electoral Commission in that respect. That will apply for the mainland UK and all other applicable areas. Again, because of the different legal background in Gibraltar, that may need to have some different legal mechanisms to be delivered, but broadly speaking the principle is clear and applies throughout.

[Wayne David]

I do not want to try the patience of the Chair. I appreciate that that answer is specific to the EU Referendum—is it an Act now or still a Bill?

[John Penrose]

It is still a Bill.

[Wayne David]

My comment, which takes its cue from the explanatory memorandum, is slightly broader than that, relating to elections more generally, and to European Parliament elections in particular, which in many ways are unique. The explanatory memorandum refers to them in the background section, if not in the specifics of the draft order. Would the Minister care to comment on those elections?

[John Penrose]

I am happy to do that. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that for these electoral purposes, and particularly for European parliamentary elections, as he mentioned, Gibraltar is part of the south-west region and, broadly speaking, the Electoral Commission’s legal functions in Gibraltar are the same as they are in the rest of the UK. I hope that explicitly clarifies that point.

With that, Mr Hanson, I commend the order to the Committee and hope that we can move on and count it as passed.

Question put and agreed to.