Spring Forecast
You froze the threshold.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
I want to raise the issue of the freezing of thresholds and its effect on the state pension. When the Chancellor froze thresholds in the Budget, she told Martin Lewis that some people would be pulled into paying tax, but would not have to pay small amounts of tax or do a tax return. The updated forecast now says that 600,000 pensioners will be drawn into paying tax this year, and that figure will rise to 1 million by the end of this Parliament. Could the Chancellor set out what the definition of “small amounts of tax” is, and what mechanism she will use to ensure that those pensioners do not have to do a tax return?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on these regulations, as anything that improves trust in medicines and vaccines is important. We need to increase the uptake of vaccines; it has fallen gradually and continues to fall, and we need to reverse that. I have a couple of technical questions. As the Minister said, the principle behind the amendment to regulation 3 of the 2012 regulations is to make prescribing pharmacists equivalent to doctors and dentists. However, regulation 3(8) currently refers to, “another doctor or dentist…of the same…practice.” Given that pharmacists will now also be included, should that be amended to “another doctor, dentist or pharmacist”, or “a doctor or dentist”? Regulation 5 redefines an “occupational health vaccinator” and refers to a list in part 4 of schedule 16 to the 2012 regulations. That significantly broadens the list to include individuals such as speech and language therapists who are not accustomed to dealing with injectable medications, but appears to exclude operating department practitioners, who, as the Minister will be aware of from his practice, are used to dealing with injectable medications. Could the Minister explain the reason for removing those practitioners from the list? Regulations 8 and 9 talk about the vaccine group direction. The patient group direction is essentially a group prescription, where a clinician signs off the circumstances in which medication—say, paracetamol —may be given by a non-prescriber. We had such a direction for the covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic. This vaccine group direction would be different, so why does the Minister feel that we need a different process to the patient group direction that is already available for vaccines, which are prescription medicines? Instead, those directions can be signed by someone who is not a clinician—such as a manager in the Department of Health or, in fact, a private company—and they do not need to have any clinical skills or qualifications at all. A clinician, or one of the people listed, must decide whether the conditions have been met, and they can then give the patient the medicine without having prescribed it. I want to ask a couple of questions on this issue. How does that improve trust, when we have a vaccine-sceptic population and lots of material on social media, some of which is not entirely accurate? How does allowing a prescription to be written by someone with no clinical experience help with trust and those rates? Is there a plan to contract out vaccine provision to the private sector, because that is what this provision allows for? Who is ultimately responsible? Is it the non-clinician who signs the vaccine group direction? Who is the clinician ultimately responsible for the decision to give the vaccine in the event that someone has an allergic reaction or an adverse reaction of some other type?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Before the Minister moves on, can I just ask him why ODPs appear to have been removed from the list?
- Hansard source
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Can the Minister confirm that the vaccine group direction—unlike a patient group direction, which ultimately needs to be signed by a clinician—would not need to be signed by a clinician, and can instead be signed by a senior manager either within a company or department?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Given what is happening in the middle east at the moment, there is a concern that petrol and diesel prices will spiral upwards. If that happens, taxation revenue on fuel will do the same. Can the Chancellor commit today to keeping taxation revenue at its current level, thereby reducing tax on fuel to help ease any future cost pressure?
- Hansard source
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
The Minister is being generous with her time and I thank her for giving way. I want to reiterate the point about the families who have already gone through the system and who have fought for EHCPs, many of whom have had to go through tribunals and feel like they are having to do everything on their own. I come from a mental health background, and I am surprised that the system does not have what I would call a care co-ordinator to support families who are going through this difficult process. Families are genuinely scared that the Government’s proposed reforms will lead to a stripping away of support. In my constituency, where we are served by Surrey and Borders partnership NHS foundation trust, it takes a year and a half to get an autism diagnosis, and even longer if people need medication for ADHD. I have raised that in this place with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care, but can the Minister reassure me that as part of the approach to SEND, she and her Department are looking at the interface between education and health? I understand what she says about the absence of a diagnosis not meaning that a child should not be supported—we could have another debate about that—but for many children a diagnosis is very important, and it needs to be timely and treatment needs to be quick and effective. Finally, before I test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I invite the Minister to come to Meath school, a special educational needs school in Ottershaw in my constituency? It is an amazing place and every time I go there I learn so much, so it would be great if she could come along and meet the fantastic kids and teachers there.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
Order. We have three colleagues wishing to speak. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so that means short speeches, please.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
Order. On that point, I call the Minister, because we are short of time.
- Hansard source
North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients
I will call Kate Osamor to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may speak only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The spring statement began well by outlining the desperate international situation and by praising our armed forces, but does the Chancellor agree that her remarks would have been all the more credible had she announced that the dither and delay that has plagued defence spending over the past 18 months would be brought to an end, and had she set a date for the publication of the much-delayed defence investment plan?
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
It is a pleasure as always, Dr Murrison. As well as congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), I would like to say in opening how much value I place on the contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). In that part of the United Kingdom, we have had the opportunity over many years to learn a great deal about how cohesion can be done right and what happens when it goes wrong. It is particularly important to hear their voices in a debate on this subject. It is also important to hear from a range of Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), who set out some quite particular insights on how the city of Birmingham has had to deal with many challenges. It is my privilege to represent an extremely diverse but thankfully very cohesive constituency. It is served by two local authorities, both of which are extremely proactive; they have interfaith networks and hold a huge variety of community events. In response to the situation when flags were being raised across high streets, which was clearly intended by many as an act of intimidation, they used those lamp posts and other public street furniture to display flags that celebrated the borough’s heritage and the heritage of the local community, in order to crowd out that space from those who sought to use it to divide the community. That shows a degree of local leadership that we all appreciate. The fact that we are having this debate in the context of housing, communities and local government demonstrates the breadth of council services. I reflect on my own time as a councillor, when the 9/11 incidents happened. Suddenly, the airspace of the United States was closed. Hillingdon council worked to provide accommodation for thousands of stranded travellers from across the world and to enable them to communicate with their family members to tell them that they were okay and that they had somewhere to stay for the night when all the hotels were full. It also worked very closely with the military, for example, to ensure that the logistics were laid on so that people were supported. As a number of Members have referred to, that kind of leadership came to the fore again during the covid era, when organisations such as H4All in Hillingdon and Harrow came out and ensured that people had food and medication delivered. We saw the work that was done by synagogues, mosques, churches and non-faith organisations to support each other not just in my community, but across the whole country. We know that cohesion is something that we can do well, and we know that its leadership often sits with local government. Indeed, when the last Labour Government promoted the roll-out of food banks, it was a recognition—as was the case in my community—that there was a level of need that statutory services were not always able to meet, which that particular community initiative was able to serve. That is why we saw the spread of those across the country to meet that specific need. We are having this debate at a time when there is a growing level of interest in issues around cohesion. Many will have heard the news coverage of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, if not the speech itself, in which she set out a number of workstreams seeking to address many of the concerns that Members have described today. It seems to me that this is an area where there is a high degree of cross-party consensus; we know that we need to address these issues in order to strengthen our society. Let me briefly set out some of the Opposition’s principles around cohesion, some of which are quite focused on local government and some of which are much broader. It is striking that all Members who have contributed to this debate have spoken of the importance of our society and values and the principles of freedom and the rule of law. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr; this must not become a debate about attacking Islam. We are a country that is a plural and liberal democracy. In a community like mine, that means that women and girls have the freedom to wear a headscarf if they choose to, and the protection of the law from those who would seek to force that on them if they choose not to. Both those things are equally important.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
I do not think there is any argument against the points that the hon. Member raises, and they reflect things that I am sure we have all heard as constituency MPs. When I visited one of my local synagogues on Friday, the people there talked about the difficulties that some of the children in that community had faced at school with the rising tide of antisemitism that they had experienced. That is part of the bigger picture. We need to ensure that, as far as we can, we build a level of common understanding. When we talk about shared values, sometimes people are prone to say, “We have sharia law in some parts of the country,” or, “We have the Beth Din, which sits outside of the law.” Indeed, the canon law of the Catholic Church, which has been part of our Christian community for centuries, permitted marriage at the age of 14 up until that law was changed in 2019. Sometimes these misunderstandings are not simply about a view of Islam; they are about different communities and cultures. We need to ensure that everybody recognises that the rule of law and the freedoms that it brings apply to everybody in our country. All of our citizens are free to decide that in the event of a dispute about a business, they would like a sharia court to be involved in settling it. If two Jewish business people wish to use the Beth Din to settle the matter, they can do that as well. That does not remove, under any circumstances, the freedoms and the protections that the law of the land gives to everybody in our country. That must always be there as a clear recourse. I will touch on an issue that we covered a little yesterday in the debate about the Representation of the People Act 1983. The issue of electoral interference is one that sits with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but is of concern to Members across the House. I reflect on a session of the Home Affairs Committee that was chaired by the now Foreign Secretary, who asked our intelligence services what evidence there was of Russian interference in the Brexit debate, which was the issue at the time. The response was illuminating. The point our security services made was not that Russia, China or Iran is seeking a particular outcome in a political debate happening in the United Kingdom. What those sponsors of terror are seeking to achieve is division in the United Kingdom and a lack of coherence in our society. We must make sure that we are always vigilant and that our laws are updated regularly to take account of how we can resist that. Moving to more local matters, a lot of the debate has revolved around what makes a community. I know you represent a constituency with a diverse range of local settlements that are different to those in London, Dr Murrison. When we think of community, we think of thriving high streets and places that people can feel proud of. We think of a strong economy and of places where people can get and keep a job that supports their standard of living and their opportunity. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections, because those things have been hotly debated in Parliament. We see the impact of rising taxes in the hollowing-out of our high streets. We know that 89,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality and 74,000 in retail since October 2024. The relentless rise in unemployment under this Government is putting enormous strain on the cohesion of our communities.
- Hansard source
Community Cohesion
I would not accept that point, I am afraid. We can recognise, not least by simply looking at the statistics, that resident satisfaction with local government services rose continuously throughout the period that Labour have described as “austerity”. Any incoming Government dealing with a colossal legacy of debt will have to find ways to live within its means. Unfortunately, we seem to be set on the path of another colossal legacy of debt. It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some points, and perhaps acknowledged the impact that her Government’s policies are having on the ability of businesses and our residents to find good, remunerative work. The first point, which the Labour leader of Sheffield has been particularly exercised about recently, and which the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) will know is of local as well as national interest, is the asylum funding situation for local government, which remains a major source of concern and grievance. The Government are providing some funding to local authorities to help them to meet the very significant costs. Hillingdon is a good example. As a gateway authority to Heathrow airport, it has accommodated many thousands of unaccompanied children over the years, and, currently, very large numbers of Chagossians are fleeing to the United Kingdom from the consequences of the Government’s Chagos deal and huge numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation by the Home Office. Those numbers have been rising very sharply, very fast, and their processing means that the numbers turning up at the town hall have increased dramatically. That means that the pressure on local authority temporary accommodation budgets is rising relentlessly. The Government refuse to say how much funding they are providing to local authorities to meet that cost, which is understandably fuelling campaigns by some in our society to say that those costs are not fully met. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Councillor Tom Hunt that the Government need to address this consequence of their actions?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
Blairite policies told 50% of my generation to go to university. Looking back at those conversations, we see that rarely did anyone ever talk about who would pay for those students to go to university, or how the jobs market would then take on that amount of graduates. It is clear that the student finance system does not work, and the goalposts keep shifting with Government policies. I think there is a cross-party view that something needs to be done. Does the Chancellor view it as a serious issue, and what does she plan to do about it?
- Hansard source
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the evidence from Samaritan’s Purse to the International Development Committee last week, which reiterated the issues on sexual violence. We also heard that in refugee camps, many people have to be naked because they have had no option but to sell their clothes to get food. I am sure she agrees that is completely and utterly unacceptable. In her last statement, she said that she was seeking to engage with the African Union and to bring it more into participation in bringing a resolution to the conflict. Has she made any progress in that regard?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
The Chancellor’s words on defence simply do not reflect the reality, at a time when the world has never felt more unstable. Every corner of our armed forces is being asked to find cuts. People in Gosport need only look out of their window to see that all our Type 45 destroyers are laid up in Portsmouth harbour, and this is the first year since the 1980s that we have not had a ship in the Gulf, at a time when the middle east is a tinderbox. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is on its knees, and defence companies are being tied up with bureaucracy, dither and delay. The Chancellor has mentioned a couple of contracts, but so many of them are bogged down with dither and delay from this Government. She is gaslighting the British people. This is a disaster for our defence, and for our armed forces. When will she face reality?
- Hansard source
SEND Provision: Local Authorities
It be remiss of me not to extend an invitation to the Minister to visit St Edward’s school in my constituency of Romsey and Southampton North. Question put and agreed to.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T3. The Foreign Secretary obviously faces real problems with the settlement she has received from the Chancellor, who is sitting next to her, but given that the last 20 years have led to the near eradication of polio and excellent work on malaria, will she prioritise those programmes to ensure we do not go backwards and once again release polio and malaria across the globe?
- Hansard source
US Tariffs
4. What discussions she has had with her US counterpart on tariffs.
- Hansard source
US Tariffs
Given that the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran without British involvement, and that this Government seem increasingly at odds with the US in relation to Diego Garcia, can the Minister assure me that the Government’s actions are not damaging the special relationship and increasing the likelihood that further tariffs will be imposed on the UK, driving up costs for the Great British public?
- Hansard source
Spring Forecast
We have heard several different discussions about defence today, but may I remind the Chancellor that yesterday morning an Iranian Shahed drone struck the runway at RAF Akrotiri? It was not taken out by any counter-drone technology—technology that was due to be included in the defence investment plan that the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me would be announced in autumn 2025. It is now spring 2026 and, despite the fact that we have had a Budget and now a spring forecast since the autumn, we have still not seen the defence investment plan. Will the Chancellor assure us that all the recommendations from the strategic defence review that the Government have pledged to deliver will be delivered in the defence investment plan when it is announced?
- Hansard source
Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It has been too long since I have had the pleasure of responding to the Minister in a Committee Room. As the Minister outlined, the regulations update the mandatory levies that electricity suppliers must pay to support the operation of the CfD scheme, the capacity market and the nuclear RAB model. These are technical changes, and the Conservatives will not oppose them. However, while I have the Minister’s attention, I have some questions to put to him. The Government came into office pledging to cut energy bills by £300, but, some 18 months later, we have seen no evidence of that promise being fulfilled. The sleight of hand in pushing costs on to tax bills has not had the desired effect. Does the Minister think that the Government will actually deliver a £300 energy bill cut? The Government’s press release said that the Department’s “internal analysis” proved that CfD allocation round 7 would cut bills, but the Department refused to let us see that analysis when we submitted a written question asking to see it. Why is the Minister’s Department refusing to publish that analysis? What is it trying to hide? Will it finally commit to publishing a full systems-cost analysis of the new energy system, which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State, so that we can have an open and honest debate about the cost of the new system? Finally, will the Minister commit to implementing the recommendations of the Fingleton review in full to make nuclear power much cheaper, quicker and easier to build in this country?
- Hansard source
Middle East
For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon. Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.
- Hansard source
Middle East
Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?
- Hansard source
Middle East
If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?
- Hansard source
Middle East
On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?
- Hansard source
Middle East
British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.” When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation. To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers. Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech. I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right? I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought. It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill. Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake. As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker. Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country. The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement. The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm. Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the answer.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.
- Hansard source
Representation of the People Bill
Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a go. Go on!