Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Clive Lewis. [Interruption.] Well, that is a great self-denying ordinance on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He says that his question has been answered and that he is therefore satisfied. If that were a template for the House as a whole, just think of the possibilities!

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain what the Prime Minister’s Brexit proposals would mean for those working for two of the largest employers in my constituency, Bentley Motors and the NHS?

[Mr Lidington]

It would be very good news for both of them. In particular, the automotive industry has been arguing for months that we need a deal that ensures frictionless trade with the EU27, and that is what the model we are proposing will deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What representations he has received on the legality of the voter ID pilots.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

12. What representations he has received on the legality of the voter ID pilots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman will have just heard me setting out measures to encourage more people to be involved in our democracy. He knows, as I hope does every Opposition Member, that there is a point of principle at stake here. Do we defend our system from fraud or do we not?

[Laura Smith]

Two barristers have concluded that there is no provision in the Representation of the People Act to introduce schemes by secondary legislation that restrict or discourage voting, and that the scheme is therefore beyond the scope of the law. Can the Minister reassure the House that she acted within the law?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I can. I can also reassure those listening that this is clearly a series of Labour Whips’ handout questions.

[Laura Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Chloe Smith]

The Labour party might like to reflect on the fact that it was its 2000 Act that allowed the pilots to be run.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the issue of flying flags, as I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, we are flying the armed forces flag at No. 10 this week, but I do want to join him in congratulating the England team on making it through to the next round in the World cup. I can assure him that No. 10 will be flying the England flag on the day of each of England’s matches from now on, and we will be encouraging other Government Departments to do the same. I can also say that I am going to go further than my predecessors: next year we will do the same for the women’s World cup.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Social care workers up and down the country are being paid less than the minimum wage as a result of incorrect Government guidance. We are repeatedly told that the Government are in talks with the EU to resolve this issue. Why are the talks taking so long? Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and commit to paying the workers what they are owed, directly through an HMRC scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an issue about people being paid the minimum wage. Obviously, there are rules in place to ensure that exactly that happens.

[Laura Smith]

It is not happening.

Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on securing the debate. I very much echo the concerns she raised.

It is deeply concerning that voters, some of whom have voted their entire lives, were denied a voice in last month’s local elections as a direct result of discriminatory policies introduced by this Government. The Government present voter identification as a solution to tackle the specific issue of voter impersonation in polling stations. Electoral fraud is a serious crime and every allegation must be investigated fully. Indeed, isolated incidents of electoral fraud have taken place and it is vital that the police have the resources they need to prosecute.

However, the proposals outlined by the Government are clearly disproportionate. In 2017 there were 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes cast—one case for every 1.6 million votes cast. Of those 28 allegations, one case resulted in a conviction. None of the five English boroughs that took part in the pilots has experienced a single instance of impersonation in the past decade. The scale of electoral fraud in this country has caused many, including Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, head of politics at the University of Liverpool, to describe voter ID as

“a solution in search of a problem”.

Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

The Government clearly recognise the flaws in their argument. When pushed, they claim that voter identification is designed to tackle the perception of electoral fraud. However, new research published today by the Electoral Reform Society shows that mandatory ID in polling stations is one of voters’ lowest concerns—just 4% of voters believe ID is the most important priority for our democracy. The top issues for voters were: ensuring that elections are free from the influence of large financial donations, an accurate voting register and balanced media coverage. That shows just how out of touch the Tories really are. To quote Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia:

“Concerns more often arise from accusations of fraud made by politicians in the media, rather than concrete cases.”

A concern shared by Opposition Members is that restrictive voter ID requirements could disenfranchise voters. Approximately 3.5 million electors do not have any photo ID, and 1.7 million lack even a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID with no free provision a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote. There is also a significant financial barrier to obtaining ID. Only recently the Government pushed through unpopular proposals to increase the cost of adult passports from £72.50 to a whopping £85. In this context, it is deeply concerning to read a comment posted by Islington Conservatives on Twitter the day after the local election that, “Voting is not compulsory so ID doesn’t need to be free”. Will the Minister condemn the statement made by her colleagues in Islington?

Article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, protects our right to free elections, including the right to vote. Under the law, voting is a right, not a privilege, and voting rights are closely linked to the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. It is therefore extremely misleading for the Government to argue that voting is like picking up a parcel from the post office, where some ID is required.

The European convention on human rights outlines that the right to vote is not absolute—conditions can be imposed, which is why it is lawful to have residency or minimum age requirements. However, these conditions must pursue a legitimate aim, be proportionate and not prevent free expression in choosing the legislature. As I said, the measures piloted last month are clearly disproportionate to the amount of voter impersonation in England, and therefore do not fulfil the legal requirement.

[Chris Green]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Smith]

I have no time.

I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s response to today’s intervention by Blackstone Chambers. According to Anthony Peto QC, the joint head of Blackstone, and fellow barrister Natasha Simonsen, schemes

“that restrict or discourage voting, or that inhibit voters,”

are beyond the scope of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Those leading barristers concluded that the pilots were illegal because they were incorrectly imposed by ministerial diktat rather than through Parliament. The Conservative party appears to have completely disregarded the rule of law. Does the Minister agree that, following that intervention, it is impossible for her Government to justify their undemocratic and unlawful plans?

The Windrush scandal demonstrated that it can be difficult for some communities to provide official documentation. This is the same hostile environment all over again, and it is shutting our fellow citizens out of public life. The Government were also warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and more than 40 leading charities and academics in two separate interventions that voter ID requirements have a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities.

I have to start winding up, because I am running out of time.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

You have run out of time.

[Laura Smith]

I will wind up really quickly.

Does the Minister seriously believe that the Government are making voting accessible for everyone? The Labour party believes in a democracy for the many, not the few. We want everyone’s voice to be heard, no matter what their background, which is why we call on the Government to abandon their dangerous plans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Cyber-security is a responsibility of all businesses and individuals. It is precisely the objective of the Government’s national cyber-security strategy to get that point across.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is undeniable that the UK is in the grip of a digital skills gap, yet despite the Government’s national cyber-security programme, the problem is getting worse. Fewer students are taking up technology-based A-levels, and those who do are underperforming compared with their counterparts in other subjects. What conversations has the Minister had with his Front-Bench colleagues to ensure that digital technology is integrated across the curriculum and that teachers of all subjects are given the training to help them inspire the next generation into closing the digital skills gap?

[Oliver Dowden]

I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady paints. We are a world leader in digital technology, as I repeatedly see when I visit the Government Digital Service, which has an extensive training programme. In addition, one of the first three of the Government’s new T-levels will focus on digital.

Syria

Laura Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has put his finger on a particular aspect of this issue. It is not possible to bring all the intelligence through to this House; it is not possible to make all that intelligence public. Sometimes, actually, more information can be made available after the event than in advance of the event, because we do need to maintain the operational security of our armed forces.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Among those of us who have been trying to follow President Trump’s tweets over the past week, I cannot be the only person who has found it extremely difficult to keep track of whether he was for military action or against military action, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us at what point the President instructed her that military action would be taken.

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is this: at no point at all. I took this decision, because I believed it was the right thing to do and it was in our national interest. It is a decision that should, I believe, be supported by anybody who recognises that we need to re-establish the international norms in relation to the use, and the prohibition of the use, of chemical weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. Again, my right hon. Friend makes a good observation. It is important that we encourage people from all backgrounds, including women and young people, to feel that they can get involved and that there are opportunities to get involved, participate and contribute to public life. To do that, they need to feel safe in that environment, and that is largely down to the political parties delivering it.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

With local elections taking place in May, it is vital that we have a diverse set of councillors representing our communities. However, only 33% of councillors in England are women, which represents a rise of only 5% in the past 20 years. There is a clear contrast with progress in the House. Does the Minister agree that the progress in improving women’s representation in local government has stalled? What are this Government doing to address that failing?

[Brandon Lewis]

One of the key things to having more women involved in local government is political parties encouraging more women to get involved. Conservative Members will certainly be doing that, and I hope the hon. Lady will join me in calling for these local elections to have a respect pledge—the Labour party should step up and do that—to make sure that people feel they can have robust debate, but with respect. The Labour party has simply failed to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of that particular issue. In the longer term, one of the things that we are doing is ensuring that we can train more doctors here in the United Kingdom, but I am aware of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised and I will look into it.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Last year, the Prime Minister acknowledged that our social care system is broken and promised to fix it. Since then, two care providers in Crewe and Nantwich have been placed into special measures and another is worried that it may have to close due to a lack of funding. What does the Prime Minister say to providers who say that the local government settlement does not go far enough and that they cannot afford to wait for the Government’s Green Paper?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, I have always said that there were some short-term, medium-term and long-term measures that needed to be taken in relation to pressure on social care. In the short term, we have provided more funding for local authorities— £2 billion extra was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and we are seeing more money going into social care in local authorities. In the medium term, we need to ensure that best practice is spread across the whole country and—she mentioned the Green Paper—we also need to ensure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable funding model for social care. That is what we continue to work on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting and valid point. I would add, of course, that we make specific protections in our law in respect of criminal justice and the asylum system, recognising that people under 18 need special protection.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

During a debate in 2015, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), said:

“I am one of those who believes that we should allow voting at 16”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 572.]

Since then, a range of senior Conservatives have outlined their support, including the former Chancellor, who said that the Conservative party risked

“being on the wrong side of history”

if it refused to back the measure. Does the Minister agree with his colleague and will does he support votes at 16?

[Mr Lidington]

I stand by the manifesto on which I stood in 2017, and, as has been made clear this morning, by the position that the Labour party took for the 13 years during which it was last in government.

Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) regulations 2018

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms McDonagh. This is my first time doing anything like this on the shadow Front Bench, so please bear with me.

The Representation of the People Act 1918, as we all know, was a crucial step forward for the empowerment of women. Yesterday, as we marked the centenary of property-owning women over 30 winning the right to vote, we were reminded that the fight for equality is indeed a journey. That was just one of many steps for women, and 100 years later the struggle for equality continues. There are still too few women in Parliament, and women still face discrimination in the workplace and in everyday life. It has been a slight shock for me, coming into this kind of working environment after working, as a primary school teacher, with wonderful women for a long time, to see the discrimination that still exists in some workplaces.

As the Minister outlined, the purpose of this legislation is to give survivors of domestic abuse in Scotland a voice in our democracy. Domestic abuse is an issue that concerns all of us. I am sure that many of us here today will know somebody who has experienced some form of domestic violence. National figures show that one in four women will experience domestic violence at some point in her life, and two women every week are killed by a current or former partner. Sadly, although we are here to discuss changes to the system of anonymous voter registration, we cannot ignore the wider context of this Government’s austerity agenda. Women’s refuges have seen their budgets slashed by nearly a quarter over the past seven years, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to boost funding for women escaping violent partners.

Turning to anonymous voter registration, it cannot be right that survivors who have faced the physical, emotional and psychological impacts of abuse are then also silenced as participants in our democratic process. Why does that happen? Because it is too dangerous for their name and address to be listed on the electoral register, and it is too difficult for them to register anonymously.

As the Minister explained, under existing legislation domestic abuse survivors must provide a court order or have their application supported by a senior independent witness, such as a high-ranking police officer, to appear anonymously on the electoral register. The proposals outlined today will add doctors, nurses and refuge managers to the list of people who can act as an attester and will lower the rank of police officer authorised to perform the function from superintendent to inspector.

It is vital that every eligible voter is able to participate in our democracy, and that is why the Opposition very much welcome the proposals. I thank Women’s Aid, which has been at the forefront of shaping and co-ordinating responses to domestic violence and abuse for more than 40 years, including this very legislation. However, it is clear that the measures do not go far enough. Survivors will still have to re-register to vote anonymously year on year, and those who move home will have to repeat their application. For many survivors, anonymity is a matter of life and death, and often women are on the run from domestic abuse for the rest of their lives. We support Women’s Aid, which has been calling on the Government to use the Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill to pass legislative changes to make survivors’ anonymous voter registration valid and indefinite, so that they can vote in safety for life. Will the Minister outline the Government’s position on that proposal? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Home Office?

The Minister has also outlined proposals to expand the data sources available to registration officers to enable them to remove entries from the register as a result of death. That is a sensible measure, but it is disappointing that the Government are focusing their energy on removing people from the electoral roll while refusing to use the same data-sharing techniques to address the millions of voters who are missing from the electoral register. The Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to increase voter registration and turnout. That is why we have called on the Government multiple times to examine the use of Government data to automatically place eligible electors on the electoral roll.

In conclusion, 2018 cannot be a year for complacency. As we celebrate the last 100 years of democratic change, we should be looking for progressive and radical solutions to address this country’s democratic deficit.

[The Chair]

Am I missing anyone else who wants to make a contribution? I call Mr Sheppard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Ms McDonagh. First, I thank both the hon. Members who have spoken for their support and that of their parties for the measures. I am delighted that we all agree on the importance of doing this and are united in getting it done. I will answer a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I welcome her to her place, and I look forward to working with her and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on many issues as time goes on.

I want to make a general point on refuge funding, which is where the hon. Lady began her remarks. It is important to note that responsibility for refuges is devolved for Scotland. For England and Wales, I can confirm that the Government have put aside a £20 million fund to support refuges. That will create more than 2,200 bed spaces and support more than 19,000 victims. That is important and valuable in the context of the concerns that she expressed. She will know that the most recent consultation on how refuges can be supported through the housing system has only recently closed and the Government will be looking at all the evidence submitted.

The hon. Lady asked whether the regulations could go further, in allowing for indefinite registration instead of the need to renew annually. I want to put on record the Government’s view, because that fair question has been asked outside as well as inside this place. The Government are, of course, mindful of the long-term risks that can be faced by domestic abuse survivors and I understand that in certain cases it might be difficult to return to completing paperwork every year.

I will offer three thoughts on the reasons behind our approach. The first is technical and most applicable. Provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and could not be tackled by the regulations before us. The Committee will recognise that work on primary legislation is at a premium in this Parliament so, regrettably, we have had to focus on what can be achieved through secondary legislation.

Secondly, I think the intention of Parliament at the time of the scheme’s introduction was to support individuals with a current risk, as opposed to an historical one. That is a point of principle rather than practicality. To be able to attest or provide evidence more regularly, or at all, as opposed to indefinitely, is important because it points to the existence of a current risk to an individual, rather than one in the past that might no longer be current.

The third reason is that EROs have a duty to maintain the accuracy of their registers. That is an underpinning duty within the democratic system. To lack an opportunity to check people with anonymous registration could make that duty more difficult. Yearly renewal supports EROs’ ability to keep accurate records of who resides where, even if that information is anonymous when the public part is issued.

The final point raised by the hon. Lady concerned deceased electors. She thought it disappointing that we were focusing on removing rather than adding electors. I will say to her gently that we are talking about dead electors. It is important for the accuracy of the register to remove deceased electors; I hope the Committee agrees. The Government want to see accurate and complete registers.

[Laura Smith]

I just want to say that in my speech and notes it definitely states that I agree with removing deceased people. My point was about putting more people on the register. I would like to put that on the record.

[Michael Fabricant]

Her job is saved!

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. First, I convey apologies from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). Because of ill health, I, as the shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary, have been asked to stand in at the last minute.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing this debate to discuss the report by the Lord Speaker’s Committee. The hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for reforming the other place, and I welcome any discussion on extending our democracy. Excellent points have been made by many hon. Members, and I agree with many of the arguments, especially those advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson).

Before dealing with the issue of the Lords in detail, let me just say that this is a crucial moment at which to consider Britain’s many constitutional arrangements. Our great nation is preparing to leave the EU, and that will bring many changes to the way the UK constitution functions. There was and is much appetite for extending our democracy, as we saw throughout and subsequent to the EU referendum debate. However, the Government have not responded well to the public’s concerns about our democratic deficit, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Their European Union (Withdrawal) Bill would put huge and unaccountable power out of the hands of Members of either House and into the hands of Ministers, sideline Parliament on key decisions and put crucial rights and protections at risk. Far from bringing control back to Parliament, it would result in a power grab for the Government.

In this context, Labour welcomes any discussion of how to increase the scale and reach of our democracy. However, it is somewhat peculiar that we in this House are discussing an internal report, proposed by the Lord Speaker, before any debate has taken place in that House. I have always tried to be a fast worker, but we have been so quick off the mark that the Lords themselves have yet to consider their approach to its recommendations. It is entirely possible that they will have views and opinions that we have yet to think of, so I hope that this discussion leads to meaningful debate and is not a waste of critical parliamentary time. Will the Minister please tell me whether he knows when the other place will have an opportunity to consider the report?

The report focuses on the subject of reducing the number of Members of the House of Lords. Notably, it considers doing so without any legislation, although that is actually unsurprising, as this Government have no appetite for bringing in any reforms. There is widespread agreement on all sides of the Lords that that House has become too large. It is one of the biggest legislative Chambers in the world. That is in part a consequence of former Prime Minister David Cameron’s years of packing the Government Benches there. In fact, Cameron appointed more peers per year and at a faster rate than any other Prime Minister since 1958, when life peerages were introduced, and more were from the Government parties and fewer from the Opposition. As he left office he appointed 13 new peers, becoming the first Prime Minister in a generation to have a controversial “resignation honours list”. This report illuminates how that Administration increased the number of Government peers at a much faster rate than previous ones. Do this Government have a prediction for how many Members the other place will have five or 10 years from now if reforms are not undertaken?

It is disappointing that comprehensive reform of the second Chamber is not a priority for the Government. That was something that the Conservative party outlined in its 2017 manifesto. The Government’s position on the matter is somewhat troubling.

Before calling the snap election, the Prime Minister attacked the other place, describing peers as “opponents” of the Government who have

“vowed to fight us every step of the way.”

She highlighted how they are not democratically elected. That was an astute and correct observation even if the rest of her statement that day was partisan rhetoric. If the Prime Minister was at that point so concerned about the undemocratic process by which Members of that House take their seats, why are the Government refusing to implement any necessary reform?

The Government’s lack of appetite to reduce the number of peers in the upper Chamber is especially peculiar given their determination to cut the number of MPs in this House. That is a cynical move that they claim will cut the cost of politics, yet they are still appointing so many Lords and doing nothing to reduce the size of that Chamber. There are costs associated with those Members, too. If the Government were really serious about cutting the amount that we spend on administering our democratic apparatus, they would be doing more to reform the upper Chamber. Will the Minister tell us what the Government will be doing to cut the cost of politics in the House of Lords?

While the Government are doing little to reduce the size of the House of Lords but trying to have fewer Members in the Commons, the casual observer might perceive on the part of the Government an 18th-century attitude, in which the principles of patronage or hereditary privilege, as seen in the Lords, are regarded as more important than the democratic mandates of the Members who sit in the Commons. With that in mind, can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to safeguard our democracy in both Houses of Parliament?

Labour Members recognise that the other place has played an integral role in the UK’s constitution, complementing the work of the House of Commons while respecting its primacy as the elected Chamber. None of our criticisms of the lack of democratic accountability detracts from the hard work and expertise of the House of Lords. That body can be an excellent Chamber for reviewing legislation and complementing our work in the Commons.

There have been a number of significant wins and concessions as a direct result of the hard work of the Labour Lords Front-Bench teams, staff and Back Benchers, in collaboration with peers from across the other place. It was because of the efforts of Labour peers that higher education providers are now required to give eligible students the option to register to vote at the same time as enrolling with a provider. Labour Lords were able to gain concessions in relation to the then Pension Schemes Bill to make sure that a scheme funder of last resort is in place to ensure that funds are protected in the event of a pension scheme collapse.

Those are just a few examples. There is certainly a large amount of expertise in the current membership of the House of Lords. However, comprehensive reform is vital to address the growing democratic deficit in our country. We cannot defend one House of our legislature not being democratically elected or accountable.

This is a serious and thoughtful report, with some interesting recommendations on 15-year terms for new Members, plans to ensure the continuing flow of new blood into the Chamber, and the removal of the Prime Minister’s absolute power of appointment. We all look forward to discussing the recommendations with colleagues from across both Houses, but in the absence of upcoming legislation on Lords reform, we also hope for a constructive response from the Government. What is the Government’s position on the various recommendations put forward?

In Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto, we committed to establish a constitutional convention to examine and advise on reforming the way Britain works at a fundamental level. We must have a debate on what any reformed upper Chamber would look like and the principles upon which it would be built. The convention will include vital questions about our citizens’ relationships with Government and will look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, considering the option of a more federalised country. Together we must consider where power and sovereignty lie, in politics, the economy, the justice system and our communities.

Labour’s fundamental belief is that the second Chamber should be democratically elected. That is the standard we must work towards. In the interim period, we will seek to end the hereditary principle, abolishing the opportunity for some to become lawmakers by virtue of birth.

[Luke Graham]

The hon. Lady talks about democracy in the UK and elsewhere, yet in the last Parliament the party leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), advocated reasserting direct control of overseas territories because he did not feel that they could manage their own affairs. Is it democracy or direct control, or is it just at the fiat of the good leader?

[Laura Smith]

I want to point out that the last Labour Government massively reduced the number of hereditary peers who sat in the House of Lords, overthrowing the system of inherited political power that had previously dominated in the Lords. I will move on from that point if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

As I have said, it is important that the democratic deficit in this country is tackled. A root and branch system of reform must be undertaken, and quickly. We cannot allow the Government to continue their years of inaction on this matter. We must see some action on the issue.