Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.
I will give way, but then I will move on.
I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.
I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point? I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds? As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so. If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making. This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.
May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.
There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change. Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation. There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all. I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have. To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election. Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.
I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.
No. It is important that the Bill does not define which areas will have auto-enrolment. In theory, constituencies or areas that have a greater propensity to vote Labour—or used to—could be prioritised. We would like clarity from the Secretary of State on this point, and I am happy to give way to him, so that he can provide it. In fairness, if every area of the country were to have auto-enrolment, that would reduce or eliminate the risk, but this is a concern. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will address that with absolute clarity. The issue is not just the legislation; it is the perception of where the Government are going. The Secretary of State got himself into some difficulty when the Government were seen to be trying to take away the right of people to vote in local council elections. I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.
The hon. Gentleman is both confused and hard of hearing. I also pointed out that straight after the next general election, the Electoral Commission will redo the boundaries for the whole country, and that will be based on the electoral roll for every single constituency and area across the country. Certain areas will have auto-enrolment and other areas will not. That will have a significant impact on the redistribution. I hope that has helped the hon. Member’s confusion. [Interruption.] I will move on. There is a fantastic opportunity here, which the Secretary of State could seize, to end the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in this country. That right is not available to UK citizens in Commonwealth countries. The only country where there is an automatic right for UK citizens to vote is the Republic of Ireland, and that arrangement is reciprocated in the UK. There are up to 2.7 billion people on this globe who, on moving to the United Kingdom, could have the automatic right to vote here. That should be looked at very seriously. As the Bill moves through the House, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the option of addressing this open access to our democracy for anyone in this country.
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.
T4. Instead of the Secretary of State’s cap on the number of branded items of school uniform, will she substitute that for a monetary cap, which would afford much greater flexibility to schools?
T3. In 2023, Parliament legislated to protect freedom of speech on our university campuses, but we are still waiting for the Government to bring section 8 of the Act into force, so will the Minister set out a clear timetable for commencing the complaints scheme to ensure that our academics are protected from censorship and silencing?
rose—
Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.
The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?
I am genuinely delighted to see the hon. Member for Halifax in her place as the Minister; I congratulate her on her achievement. She has been sent here to speak to a straightforward piece of delegated legislation that raises the minimum wage levels but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined, the situation is becoming more complex. It is worth saying a few words about what we see in the real world. My constituency is Wetherby and Easingwold, and it does what it says on the tin: I represent the two market towns of Wetherby and Easingwold, as well as other towns such as Tadcaster and Boroughbridge, surrounded by lots of villages. There are lots of small businesses in those towns, and although it would be wrong to say that they are not hiring young people, they have stopped hiring as many young people as they used to. It is all well and good to compliment the changes and say that wages are rising for the poorest paid, but that does not take into account the other tax changes that have taken place, such as the changes to rates and employers’ national insurance contributions. All these things, when added together, have resulted in businesses cutting back on the number of young people who work for them. I remember my very first job at WHSmith, when I was still at school. I went for a Saturday job, but I ended up getting a job doing the newspapers and magazines before the shop opened every day of the week. I would get up at half-past 5, and leave WHSmith at half-past 8 to go to school. It was a real experience for me as a 17 to 18-year-old to have to have that discipline and to go to work in the real world. As I have often said, I have never had as much disposable income as I had then—the clubs and pubs of Gravesend were very welcome to it. The experiences that a young person can gain from short-term or Saturday employment, or part-time employment during school holidays, are vital. I fear that looking just at the rises in the minimum wage, and talking about how much people can earn a year, does not take into account the other pressures on business. For all the importance of raising people’s wages, it does not achieve anything if the jobs are not there.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she illustrates the point I am making. It is not about the minimum wage; it is about the other taxes that have gone alongside the minimum wage and put huge pressure on businesses. Lots of people say that raising the minimum wage is great, because it puts more money in people’s pockets, but it is the other pressures at the same time that are the issue. I could name five businesses in just one town in my constituency that did hire young people to work on a Saturday but have reduced the number of people they hire because of the other costs. I will move on, because I am sure we were not expecting to be here in the Committee Room for too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I raised this issue on Second Reading of the Employment Rights Act. I do not know how many Members on the Government Benches stood for election before 2024, but Labour party manifestos before 2024—it was not in the 2024 one—said the party would ban unpaid internships. I have fought to ban unpaid internships in every single term I have been in this place, and I have never got anywhere. Every Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said, “I don’t see why we are not doing it,” and then it did not happen. I brought forward an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act 1998 so that it would include unpaid internships. One would have thought that a Government who keep talking about paying young people, getting them on the ladder and doing things for them would have included a simple minimum wage—whether the apprenticeship wage or the minimum wage for the youngest, a minimum wage—in that Act for people who are exploited. Anybody who works for a company for four weeks is adding value to the company, no matter what anybody says. Being asked to go and work, perhaps in London, for a year—having to sort out accommodation and bear all the costs—and not getting paid is exploitation. I am afraid that, again, I push back on the Government. They parrot that what they are doing for people is great, because they are raising the minimum wage, but that does not take into account the other tax rises that have put pressure on business, and it does not do anything to move things forward for young people who are missing out on opportunity because they do not have the ways and means to work for free. The Government should take a close look at themselves. They have talked about their Employment Rights Act and have come here today to boast about rises in the minimum wage, but they have not ensured that a whole section of young people actually get paid for a day’s work. My party has always believed that work should pay.
Does the Minister agree that unpaid internships should be banned?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace. West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?
A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?
Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?
1. What steps she is taking to support the education of service children.
Can I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks and thank her for her thoughtful answer? I know that we both share a desire to honour the service of those in our armed forces by recognising and addressing the impact on their families. As the MP for Catterick garrison and nearby RAF Leeming, I see in particular the impact on service pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which I know is something that she cares about. My local school leaders have recently implemented the Garrison Assist project, which seeks to address some of those challenges, and in light of the recent White Paper I met with those school leaders. Will she arrange a meeting for them with officials so that they might share their learnings and so that service pupils across our country can get the support that they need and deserve?
The roll-out of free breakfast clubs and the Government’s wider child poverty strategy are supposed to be driven by data, yet the Department does not even hold information on which councils in England have implemented auto-enrolment for free school meals. If the Government do not hold that basic data, which would show that Devon has done so and given £1.5 million in pupil premium but that Plymouth has delayed doing so until 2026-27, how can the Government be trusted to roll out further taxpayer-funded support—such as free breakfast clubs—and how can they prove the impact that that has on child poverty?
Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?
Order. I call Justin Madders.
Order. I call Florence Eshalomi.
Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.
Order.
I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
I call the shadow Minister.
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 12 and 13 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Consumer Protection That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Conferral of Functions) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved. That the draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 26 January, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier. This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at? Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support. We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country. The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not. Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said: “If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies” while forcing us “to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”. Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them. What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.
It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it. Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.
If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up. Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country. Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further. To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.
The Chairman of the Petitions Committee is introducing the debate very well. I was a local councillor too, in Basildon in the early 1990s. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a good thing that the Government have done a reverse ferret, so we can now have local elections across the country, including in Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Southend and Labour-led Thurrock? Those councils will now have to face the electorate on their appalling record.