Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Esther McVey and Gareth Snell

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

Yes, that is right. Things are changing continually. The Bill goes against the age of adulthood, with lawmakers raising the minimum age for many different things. As a country we collectively agree that the age of 18 is adulthood, and with that come rights and responsibilities, and things we can and cannot do. Once we reach the age of 18, an individual can stand for election to this House, make decisions about their own medical treatment, enter into binding financial agreements, and buy cigarettes and vapes. They can even get a tattoo. Perhaps the greatest right of all is the right to vote and the responsibilities that come with that, yet under the Bill 1.7 million 16 to 17-year-olds will be granted the right to vote.

We could all see that the proposal was about fixing the right to vote. It was about ballot fixing. It was in the hope that the Labour party could win the next general election if it got this generation of young people to vote for it. Now that it has seen the latest polling and that young voters are turning Green, the Government might do what they do on a regular basis: screeching U-turns. That might be done not through common sense but self-interest. They might do another screeching U-turn here.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The shadow Secretary of State made a defence of the right for overseas electors to vote based simply on their citizenship. Why, when someone who does not live in this country can vote based on their citizenship, does the right hon. Lady argue that a 16-year-old with the same citizenship rights who lives here and contributes should not?

[Esther McVey]

We are talking about two completely different things. We are talking about the age of adulthood, the age at which we think people have the ability to weigh up everything that is going on and come to a decision. The House is saying that those young people cannot go on social media, should not be on certain types of iPhone and should not be able to do other things, yet at the same time they are mature enough to vote—inconsistency. I am saying that we need to be consistent: a bit of common sense and consistency would go a long way in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Esther McVey and Gareth Snell

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My right hon. Friend is living proof of social mobility—her family came here from Uganda, started a newsagents and expanded their business—and is right to ask: how can we get people into a job, and how can we help with recruitment and apprenticeships? I am working with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation to look at those opportunities and also with the Secretary of State for Education—that is where responsibility for apprenticeships is held, but we will do all we can to support my right hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In Stoke-on-Trent, one of the best ways of achieving social mobility is through our wonderful further education system, so will the Secretary of State please impress upon her colleagues at the Department for Education that properly funded further education, whether that be sixth-form colleges or other establishments, is needed and that they must make sure it is provided?

[Ms McVey]

I will send the hon. Gentleman’s message to the Department for Education, but in this Department we do as much as we can, whether through traineeships or sector-based work academies, to support young people. It is about choice: do they want a job, an apprenticeship or further education?

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Esther McVey and Gareth Snell

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What we are hearing about today is a court judgment that found the Government’s policy wanting, but the Secretary of State has come to the House seeking plaudits for now not appealing that decision, and that is frankly unacceptable. While it is right for those who were not given the help and support that they needed to get a backdated payment, that payment does not remedy the trauma that they faced during the years when they did not have support. Will the Secretary of State offer an unequivocal apology from the Dispatch Box for the consequences of her Department’s policy? Whether intended or not, it was her Government’s decision that led to people struggling at home, and that is simply not right.

[Ms McVey]

That was another reason for making a written statement, as well as the time constraints and what we had to do to adhere to the legal ruling. I have not come here today for plaudits. I have come here to do what is right and to explain what is right. That is what I have done, and that is the key thing for all our constituents and the people who are watching this closely at home. We have made a decision. I believe that it has been accepted on both sides of the House, and we are going to get things right.