Electoral Registration

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I will not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who I suspect sees a conspiracy every time he walks past a bus queue. The reality is that this serious issue deserves rather better than the cynical treatment it has had from the Opposition today.

The integrity of the register is an integral part of our democracy, and that integrity means not only that those who should be on the register are on it, but that those who should not be are not on it. The level of complacency demonstrated by the Labour party towards that aspect of the equation is nothing less than contemptuous towards our electors.

[Wayne David]

The Electoral Commission has been quoted on many occasions, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that even it says that it is the perception of fraud, not the actuality of it, that Members are talking about?

[Robert Neill]

The report last week deals comprehensively with that, and there is another report to which I will refer the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let me deal first with the important issue of why the Labour party really has adopted this attitude. I made an assumption about the backing away from Labour’s previous stance that we saw from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I am sorry he is not in his place, because I know he is a great fan of block votes and he is probably looking for a few in the London Labour party at the moment for the nomination for Mayor—I am sure we could pass that on to him. I assumed it was the normal reaction that we get from the Labour party nowadays. IER was, of course, introduced—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) must contain himself for a moment. IER was, of course, introduced in 2009. What is that magic figure of 2009? Of course, Tony Blair was still around, so it is a legacy of the previous—[Interruption.] The Labour party is anxious to forget everything that went before and the reason the previous Government come into it is this: the Labour party had a track record of being extremely flaky on adopting IER.

The Electoral Commission published a report in 2003 and the Labour Government responded to it in 2004, saying that they were sympathetic to the principle of individual registration but they were not going to implement it—that is the reality. Ever since then, Labour has had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards improving the quality of the electoral register. In the end, the experience in Northern Ireland, where IER certainly produced a reduction in the number of people on the register but also significantly reduced fraud, made it clear that Labour’s position was untenable. The people of Northern Ireland blazed the way for the rest of this country and we should salute the introduction of IER there. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for the rest of the UK as well, and it is no good the Labour party trying to row back from that now.

The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for this phased implementation of IER. Ironically, that was not originally in the Bill and it was put in only as a result of pressure from the then Opposition parties in the House of Lords. The Labour party was reluctant even to take that step.

[Frank Dobson]

It is often said that the country would be better governed if there was a consensus, but may I say that I have never been part of the consensus on IER? I thought it was stupid when it was suggested by the stupid Electoral Commission and it has remained stupid ever since. We have had the mad situation that in this democratically elected House we have knowingly voted to reduce the number of people entitled to vote—it has been a disgrace.

[Robert Neill]

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a hard-line stance, which is consistent with his political views. There is no doubt that he demonstrated that same consistency when he voted down changes to the boundaries that would have ensured that the electorate of his constituency was broadly more equal with that of mine, but we will not trouble him with that unfortunate matter.

The fact that the issue of electoral fraud has been dismissed so often by the Opposition suggests that they think it is irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made an important point. The real difficulty that we have is proving cases, and the complacency shown by the Opposition on this matter is breathtaking. The reality is that the six-month time limit makes it particularly difficult to get the evidence required for this type of offence. I hope that, in the future, we will revisit that matter. We should extend the timeline for bringing prosecutions for election offences, and I hope that we can consider that in the new Parliament.

The very nature of the offence makes it difficult to prosecute, particularly when it involves the head of the household, as it has in the past, filling in forms on behalf of other people. It is also difficult to get people to stand up against members of their own family on whom they may be dependent. That is why there are fewer prosecutions than we would expect. That fact is borne out by the useful report, “Electoral Offences since 2010”, which has been issued by the Library of the House of Commons. Members might be interested in looking at it. It was published on 30 July 2014, and details, over a raft of pages, individual instances of allegations of electoral fraud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, it has been difficult to bring many of those cases to a successful prosecution, but the report is, none the less, really worth looking at.

In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, there have been repeated cases of fraud. Let me say here that I am not trespassing on the current court case. This has nothing to do with the election petition against the mayor. Historically, there have been repeated allegations of malpractice in Tower Hamlets, largely by abuse of the block registration of postal votes. In March 2012, Tower Hamlets removed 127 names from the electoral register. It was not possible to bring a prosecution in that case, but the names were removed because they should not have been on the register. Clearly, malpractice was going on. Some 550 people were registered in 64 properties in the borough. In some cases of registration, there were eight people to a bedroom. It was nonsense, but it is something that the Labour party regard as “fairly minor”. It says that it is a small price to pay. I say that it is not, because it demeans the electoral process. But that does not matter as far as Labour is concerned. Its ersatz view of quantity seems to trump the importance of quality in the elector register. At the end of the day, it is the quality of the electoral register that is most important. If it is not honest, people will lose faith.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that we can drive up the number of people properly on the register through the excellent initiatives of the Electoral Commission. We do not need the specious arguments of the Opposition to do that. We can have safe and secure electoral registration and sensible campaigns to increase voter registration.

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to make a little progress as I have little time left.

My own local authority in Bromley has made great progress with its individual canvasses and maintaining the roll-over on to the register; it can be done. Frankly, we have had nothing but crocodile tears from the Opposition. I have not seen so many crocodile tears since General Nasser built a dam across the River Nile. They should not be detaining the House in the way that they are doing. The Opposition motion is a shambles and a disgrace.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I recognise the importance of this Bill, and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his work and to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for the way in which he has set out the matter. I recognise that there are many in the Church who welcome the Bill, and I do not seek to do otherwise. None the less, I do seek to raise constructively just one caveat by way of context, which is that the strength and value of the Church of England as our established Church is the richness that it brings to our public life. While we have the House of Lords in its current form, I certainly firmly believe in the importance of the role of the Lords Spiritual. It is important of course, and the argument has been made, that the Lords Spiritual should represent and be reflective of the Church. To that extent, the Bill fulfils the necessary and appropriate function of recognising the will of the Church decided through Synod.

The only caveat I seek to make is this: the other great richness of the Church of England has been its ability to band together various traditions within the Christian faith, and the fact that we have within the Church of England those who might be regarded as broadly traditional or evangelical and those who, like me, identify strongly with the Catholic tradition; such a mix enriches the role of the Church. A degree of diversity reflecting that broadness of reach within the House of Bishops is also important. I recognise the value that bishops bring, both collectively and individually, to the upper House. I know that the work of my own diocesan bishop, Bishop James of Rochester, in relation to prison reform is second to none and contributes greatly to our public life.

Although I understand the reason for not holding back women bishops, we must ensure that there is proper diversity of all traditions of the Church within the Lords Spiritual. I mention that because the five principles in the bishops’ declaration particularly refer to recognising those traditions that have a difficulty—for theological reasons with which some may disagree—with the ordination of women. None the less, they should be able to “flourish” within the family, and the life and the system of the Church of England, and I hope that that can be reflected in the appointments in due course to the upper House. I say that because there is at the moment only one diocesan bishop of the Church of England who is clearly identified with the Catholic tradition of the Church of England. I am talking about the Bishop of Chichester, who would, under normal circumstances, be the second in line to enter the Lords after the Bishop of Lincoln.

Although I do not seek to prevent the advancement of women bishops, I hope that when appointments are made it is recognised that there is an important, valued and ancient tradition of the Church of England that should have the opportunity to have a proper representation within the Lords Spiritual, which it probably does not have in the Church itself as it is currently constituted. That is not for this House or for Government to dictate. But it is a point worth making in a constructive spirit in ensuring that we have the best possible representation of the Lords Spiritual in the upper House.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I recognise the importance of the initiatives set out in part 8. Does the Minister recognise that, consistent with his observation about making sure there is proportionality, before any regulations relating to part 8 are drawn up, careful consultation should take place with those directly affected in the financial sectors and, in particular, great attention should be given to the security risks that might arise if a register is held online?

[Matthew Hancock]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Improving transparency internationally is important in ensuring that we tackle crime and have a system that people trust, but we have to introduce things in a way that supports legitimate business, does not put undue burdens on business and is secure in terms of the data held. The points he makes are important.

We have increased parliamentary scrutiny of the business impact target—the target for regulatory reduction. We heard in Committee that the Labour party would make no commitment to tackle the burden of regulation on business, whereas we have our one-in, two-out rule. We are ensuring that the targets and the associated metrics will have to be laid before Parliament when they are set or amended. We have also changed the Secretary of State’s powers on administration sales to connected parties and certain elements of the register of people with significant control, so that they are now subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, not the negative one.

We have also introduced new topics during the Bill’s passage, making it easier for small businesses to access finance. Research suggests that 71% of small businesses approach only one finance provider. Our change will ensure that those who want to do so, having been rejected by their bank, can have their details passed on, to encourage greater competition among finance providers. One problem was that there were few different finance providers—the number of banks had shrunk over the past couple of decades—but now, thankfully, the competition is very successfully coming back into the market for finance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

On Second Reading I raised my concerns about the provisions in clause 75 and part 7, and related issues in part 8 and schedule 3, to set up a register of people with significant control—in effect, a register of beneficial ownership. I questioned whether they would have benefit in terms of countering illegal activity or investigating tax evasion, even if this was at the triple cost of loss of privacy, increasing the regulatory burden on companies and threatening investment in British companies. Since that time, my concerns that we are doing the wrong thing have increased, not reduced.

I am sorry not to have been given time to speak to my tabled amendments. It is of concern also that the issue of privacy was not raised by any amendments tabled in Committee, with the honourable exception of the wise remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in the stand part debate. He raised the key question: how many of the 22.5 million English companies is it actually suspected may be subject to some wrongdoing that could be tackled by these proposals? This question has yet to be answered by the Minister or anyone else. I respectfully suggest that this is not the proper process for encouraging investment or portraying this Government as business-friendly.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), replied in Committee that the impact assessments undertaken indicated that

“our proposed measures are lawful, necessary and proportionate”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 30 October 2014; c. 423.]

So I went through the impact assessment, and I cannot find such justification at all. In fact, it is by some way the weakest case I have ever read in an impact assessment. For instance, the impact assessment makes it clear that there exists little or no data or academic literature quantifying the proposition that a reduction in crime will follow as a result of a register of people with significant control.

My prediction is that these part 7, clause 75 and schedule 3 provisions will not work. In many instances there will be confusion as to who or what is a shareholder with significant control—for instance, in terms of family holdings, let alone complicated trusts, with expensive advice then required. The proposed data collection method is based on self-reporting, with no verification mechanism, which could make it easy, especially for non-resident shareholders, to misreport or simply to give the shares to someone else to hold.

For the purpose of this debate, let us take as our starting point the G8 agreement that companies should know who their shareholders are. I repeat: companies—not commercial competitors, NGOs, direct marketers, spammers or providers of financial services looking for clients, let alone criminals, fraudsters and all the others who could use or misuse information provided under these provisions.

Now we have the further G20 communiqué proposing a crackdown on secret shell companies. However, this was not accompanied by a call for share registers to be made public. So how did we get from the narrow G8 and G20 proposals to what we have in the Bill?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and I very much agree with him. Is it not significant that on the back of the G7 discussions these proposals might be extended to the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, many of which are already well in advance of most other jurisdictions on transparency on an international scale?

[Mr Djanogly]

That may be the case, but it has not been said in public.

There is a hint in the impact assessment that, amazingly, provides only two alternatives—do nothing and rely on voluntary campaigns, or jump all the way to the Bill provisions and propose company registers, with companies reporting annually to Companies House. But why does the impact assessment not review more focused registration regimes? That will now need to be addressed in the other place.

This is not an academic issue. In particular, there seems to have been a wholesale disregard for the material impact that these provisions will have on privacy. People can buy assets privately unless the asset is public, such as a listed stock. They may not want other people to know what they own; they may have cultural, security or even religious-based concerns about people knowing that they own part of a company. What evidence do the Government offer in the impact assessment to justify destroying this right of privacy? Very little.

As for the increase in the regulatory burden, the impact assessment talks of implementation costs on companies and ongoing costs. It also says that the costs to people who need to register their interests cannot be ascertained, and those are the same people who may have to take expensive advice.

Investment in British companies is also threatened. The impact assessment methodology is again flawed, because it looks at the quantity of companies affected, not the quality. In other words, one lost huge Chinese investor deciding not to use or invest in an English company could be very damaging to UK plc, even if a thousand single-owner tiny companies say that this measure will not impact upon them. Again, the impact assessment does not support the Government’s contention that they remain convinced that this reform will be good for business and the UK business environment. What the IA actually says is:

“There is a risk that we have not accurately accounted for this potential impact on overseas investment in the UK and UK competitiveness . . . particularly since the UK will likely be a ‘first mover.’”

One has to ask why we should be the first mover, with associated risks as we claw ourselves away from recession.

And here’s the rub: foreign companies will not have to keep this register, which means that British people who legitimately wish to retain their privacy will be forced not to use English companies, but to use, say, Irish or British Virgin Islands ones instead. As always, it will be the relatively small, unsophisticated businessman who bears the weight of regulation aimed at catching drug smugglers, which I suggest these proposals will fail to do anyway.

Looking at this Bill as it goes to the other place, I would consider abolishing the need for companies to file annual returns of their PSCs—that is, returns that will be outdated within five minutes of being filed. Accepting that the company PSC register is instigated to comply with the G8 and G20 requirements, if the company does not wish to release the PSC register voluntarily, the applicant should have to ask the court for access. I suggest that the proper purpose grounds for access should be restricted to national security, personal safety issues and tax investigations.

In this way Government crime and tax agencies would be able to make their inquiries, but the registers would still protect privacy for those companies that wished to respect this right. At the same time, the unjustified costs and regulation of keeping the central register would be abolished and foreign investors would not be put off investing in the UK. Finally, investors, especially British investors, would be saved the irrationality of having to trade through UK branches of foreign companies in order to retain their privacy rights. There is time for the other place to review these provisions, and I hope it does so.