G8
Stephen Williams Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The moment has arrived for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), who need no longer look downcast in any way.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. All my colleagues thought that I was going to be left out. When I used to read double tax treaties, they were written in a bygone age and mentioned quarrying, forestry and the signatory powers of overseas agents. Will the Prime Minister use Britain’s position in the OECD to ensure that those treaties are brought up to date, particularly in regard to e-commerce, where so much international tax avoidance is done?
The Prime Minister
That is a very important point. We must also try to make them less impenetrable, but they need to cover every area. E-commerce is a real challenge for the tax authorities, because so much business has gone online.
Debate on the Address
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
It is an honour to second the motion on the Humble Address and a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff). I guess that that might be the first of several valedictory speeches we will hear from him over the next two years. When he does reach retirement after the next general election, the third age of life, I invite him to visit my constituency, where he will see the greatest concentration of Brunel heritage assets anywhere, including the Clifton suspension bridge, Bristol Temple Meads station and SS Great Britain. He will be most welcome.
I am sure that most of us, whether we saw it in person or watched it on television, will have enjoyed the pageantry of the state opening of Parliament. My first experience of royal London was as a school boy, when I stayed with my grandmother’s sisters in north London in the late 1970s and early 1980s. My Aunty Eve and Aunty Edith lived in Finchley. I was somewhat surprised, when walking down the high street, to see framed photographs of the local Member of Parliament at the time, Mrs Thatcher. It was something of a culture shock for a valleys boy from the mining village of Abercynon in south Wales. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether there are such framed photographs of you or, indeed, whether there are framed photographs of the current Prime Minister in his constituency, but I remember at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Sheffield a couple of years ago being somewhat startled to be confronted by enormous billboards paid for by Unite—an organisation which, if I may say so, funds quite a lot of mischief around the country—that were adorned with a curious image of a creature called Cleggzilla who was trampling public services before him. [Interruption.] Mischief, as I said.
Mrs Thatcher—this will not surprise you, Mr Speaker, or anyone else—is certainly not my political hero. My political hero is one of the other contenders for the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century: Lloyd George. I first saw a statue of Lloyd George by Caernarfon castle and I visited the library and museum about him at Llanystumdwy—another boyhood holiday destination, Butlins in Pwllheli in north Wales, which is perhaps not quite so familiar to most members of the Cabinet. Lloyd George and Asquith laid the foundations of the welfare state, including the old age pension. I am therefore delighted that one of the key announcements in today’s Queen’s Speech is a further radical reform of the state pension that will correct an injustice that has been within the system for many decades for those who stay at home to look after their children. I am also delighted that the single-tier state pension is to be taken through Parliament by my Greater Bristol parliamentary colleague, the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb).
Lloyd George headed a Liberal-Conservative coalition that broke up 81 years ago. I understand that our current coalition colleagues recently celebrated the anniversary of their 1922 committee, but I am sure that rumours of a new 2015 committee are unfounded. I have heard the Prime Minister say that he has a better relationship with the 1922 committee than some of his predecessors. The Prime Minister and I were born within 48 hours of each other. For the avoidance of doubt, he is the older of the two, but I can see from this vantage point that genetics have been kinder to him than they have to me, particularly in the tonsorial department, both in colour and cover. While our family and school circumstances were quite different, we must have had similar cultural reference points and experiences during the 1970s and ’80s. I believe that he was a fan of The Smiths—though I understand that the feeling is not entirely mutual—while I preferred Duran Duran and ABBA, with my favourite song being “Dancing Queen”, which will not come as much of a surprise to many of my colleagues.
That leads me, almost neatly, into one of the great social reforms of this Parliament, and that is of course gay marriage. The right of same-sex couples to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other before their family and friends will be a lasting social reform of this Parliament. The legislation is brought forward by this coalition Government but supported by Members from all parties around the House. Bristol West has three Quaker meeting houses, a Unitarian chapel and a reform synagogue, so the country’s first same-sex marriage may well be in my own constituency—but, personally, I am still waiting for my own Prince Charming so that I may be able to take advantage of this new legal right.
Whatever the background of my constituents, my Lib Dem colleagues and I want to build for them a stronger economy and a fairer society where everyone is able to get on in life. We already know that by the end of this tax year the amount of pay that people can take home free of income tax will have been raised to £10,000. It was announced today in the Queen’s Speech that there will be a national insurance contributions Bill giving employers a £2,000 national insurance credit, enabling them to take on take on new employees. That means that a business could take on four adults on the national minimum wage and pay no national insurance. Moreover, 450,000 small businesses will have their national insurance bills eliminated completely. We have cut taxes for people in work and we are also cutting national insurance and reforming child care to enable people to enter or stay in employment.
In Bristol, the new enterprise zone around Bristol Temple Meads station will become a hub for media businesses. Bristol already has a worldwide reputation for film making, with Aardman Animations perhaps the most famous, especially for its cartoon characters, Wallace and Gromit. This summer, Bristol will be adorned with 80 statues of its most famous animated dog, and they will be sold at a “Gromit Unleashed” auction in order to raise money for the Bristol children’s hospital. Before that auction takes place, I would like to invite the Leader of the Opposition to come to Bristol to pose next to a statue of Gromit—I am sure the cartoonists would be delighted.
I came into politics to tackle the social inequality—particularly in education and health—that I found in the village where I grew up and in the city where I have lived all my adult life. Bristol has some schools where almost everyone achieves high grades and proceeds to university, but there are also some schools in the city where expectations historically have been the opposite. I am delighted that the Lib Dem policy of the pupil premium, brought into life by this coalition Government, is already giving extra resources for each child on free school meals and will make a huge difference to their life chances.
Health inequalities are also stark in Bristol. The biggest cause of early death is, of course, smoking. If I am allowed on this occasion to express one disappointment with the Queen’s Speech, it is with the lack of new measures to reduce the number of children taking up smoking. The regulation of lobbyists was also absent from the Queen’s Speech. I am sure that some will conclude that tobacco lobbyists will celebrate that as a double victory.
Many of us will be pondering the lessons and meanings of last week’s local election results. Perhaps, as Disraeli said,
“England does not love coalitions.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1852; Vol. 123, c. 1,666.]
I do not think so. All three main parties should be concerned about why people are turning to what might be thought of as marginal parties. Robert Kennedy, when trying to understand the appeal of Governor Wallace of Alabama, said:
“About one-fifth of the people are against everything all of the time.”
We need to think about how to counter this new, curious alliance of Nigels, who both advocate withdrawal from Europe and deny the human contribution to climate change.
On the European Union, Europhiles, such as me and many of my colleagues, and Euro-pragmatists in the Government need to make the case for Britain’s participation in Europe, and we need to do so with some urgency. On the EU, immigration and climate change, I believe that leadership, not followership, is required.
Finally, my most illustrious predecessor as MP for the historic city of Bristol was Edmund Burke. He had much to say on that matter and wrote to his constituents:
“it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.”
He concluded his address to the electors of Bristol:
“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
That is all very well, but I am afraid that in 1780 the electors of Bristol showed Mr Burke the door. In 2013 we have to listen as well as lead. I am not sure what Edmund Burke would have made of 38 Degrees.
I would like to thank all of my constituents in Bristol West for the hundreds of letters and e-mails they send me every month, and I am sure there will be plenty on this Queen’s Speech. It is with them uppermost in my mind and on behalf of my 92,000 electors in Bristol West that I say that it has been a pleasure and a privilege to second this Humble Address to Her Majesty, thanking her for her Gracious Speech today.
Voting Age
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the age of eligibility for voting in all elections and referendums in the United Kingdom should be reduced to 16.
It is a great pleasure to follow the previous business. I certainly support same-sex marriage and look forward to giving the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill a good and safe passage through this House.
Today I am talking about another reform whose time has come—extending the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds. There is widespread support for this proposed measure among parliamentarians from all parties. It is also supported by a wide coalition of youth charities, including the British Youth Council, Barnardo’s and the YMCA, as well as youth representation groups, such as the National Union of Students and, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) just mentioned, the UK Youth Parliament, which debated this very subject on these Benches under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Those who listened to those young people debating the issue will know that they did not have to deal with all the dusty arguments that were used in the past to oppose votes for most men, any woman and people under 18. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the registration age for voting came down to 16, the average age for those registering to vote in a general election would be 18, because general elections do not come along every year?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, I will make a similar point later.
This proposed constitutional measure is not in the coalition agreement, because there is a difference of opinion between the leadership of my own party and that of our fellow coalition members, the Conservative party. Because the motion is outside the coalition agreement, the Government will not introduce it. It is down to the rest of us as parliamentarians to deliver this particular change.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the age of adulthood is a mess in so many areas? It is possible to buy cigarettes at one age, drink alcohol at another and drive at yet another. Surely the answer is not just to look at what the voting age should be, but to tidy up the law and equalise the age of adulthood for everything.
Stephen Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I disagree with him and will explain why later. I do not think there is an absolute age at which young people acquire the rights and responsibilities for every single facet of their young lives. I think that it is appropriate to have different ages, and will come to that later.
Given that the motion is outside the coalition agreement, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting me the opportunity to introduce this debate. I am also grateful to my co-sponsors from all parties in the House, particularly the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who accompanied me on one of the occasions that I made representations to the Committee.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly since I am one of the co-sponsors who, sadly, was not able to attend the bid to the Backbench Business Committee. Does he agree that a strong reason for supporting the motion is the evidence—I am sure he is aware of it—from countries such as Austria, where lowering the voting age has led to increased voter turnout, and that, given that voter turnout is something that we all care about, this proposal would be a very good way of achieving that?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady, whom I am delighted is one of the motion’s co-sponsors, makes a very good point. I will come to international comparisons later.
Just over seven years ago, on 29 November 2005, I was the last Member of Parliament to provoke a Division on this issue, and we lost by just eight votes. I think that the mood of the House and the country has now changed and that it is worth while to make another attempt.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I support this debate, but am passionately against the motion and will make a speech later. The fact of the matter is that too many people on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the argument exaggerate the level of support. Has he seen the recent polls in Scotland, which show there is no support for votes at 16 or 17?
Stephen Williams
I will leave matters relating to Scotland to other contributors. If you permit it, Mr Speaker, we will hear from that corner of the United Kingdom later.
The case for lowering the voting age is usually made—the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has alluded to this—on the grounds of other rights and responsibilities that young people already have at 16 and 17. I will come to those later, but I would prefer to justify lowering the franchise age to 16 on the principal grounds that I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds have sufficient maturity and knowledge to cast a vote, if they want to do so. We do not have compulsory voting in this country, so we would simply be affording 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to vote if they wished to do so.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out his case very well. I spent my whole life working with 16 to 19-year-olds until I came to this place, and my experience suggests that they are as good at making decisions on voting as the people who are assembled here.
Stephen Williams
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who leads me neatly on to my next point.
Although I have not worked in the further education sector, as an MP, and as a candidate and a county councillor before that, I have about two decades of experience of speaking to sixth-formers and those at further education colleges, and I have always been impressed by the depth and range of their knowledge both about matters that are purely about Bristol and about those that have global implications.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
When I visit further education establishments, people are intrigued and impressed by the idea of being able to vote, yet somehow when they leave further education they do not take advantage of that. We need to tap into their enthusiasm while it is there and get them into the habit of voting.
Stephen Williams
As I said, there is widespread support for the change in all parties, and there we have another revelation from a Conservative coalition colleague that there is growing support for it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way to so many Members so early in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman’s motion refers to
“voting in all elections and referendums in the United Kingdom”.
Does he accept that if there are elections in one particular part of the UK—Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales—there may be a case for saying that the devolved legislatures should consider the matter? In the case of the Scottish referendum, for instance, the Scottish Parliament will decide on the age of the participants, because that decision has been devolved. Is the scope of the motion not too wide, and should not the place of the devolved legislatures be respected?
Stephen Williams
I and my party colleagues are fundamentally committed to the principle of devolution, not just to the nations of the United Kingdom but, from my perspective, through growing empowerment for local government and city regions. I would like local government to decide its own franchise arrangements. First past the post is a clapped-out, ludicrous system. In Bristol, where we have genuinely competitive four-party politics and all the mainstream English parties compete, Bristol city council ought to have the power to alter its electoral cycle and decide on its franchise. I am therefore fully with the right hon. Gentleman in believing in such subsidiarity in decision making.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling the motion and am delighted to be one of its supporters. Does he agree that registration is another issue that should be considered? Many young people, particularly students living in houses in multiple occupation, do not get themselves on the register and therefore miss the first opportunity to vote. With general elections every five years, it can be a long time before they have another opportunity. Starting at 16 would make it easier for them to get on the register earlier.
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will return to the composition of the franchise later and refer to the experience in Northern Ireland, which is ahead of the game compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Although I am not listed as a supporter of the motion, I would have been delighted to be, because I am fully in sympathy with it.
The hon. Gentleman’s point that the time has come for the change is pertinent, because citizenship is now taught in schools, and in Wales we have the Welsh baccalaureate, which lends itself well to the change. He, I and other Members go into schools and debate pertinent issues of the day on a multi-party basis. I want young people to make their decisions on those issues and go out and mark their cross in the ballot box. It is wrong to deny them that opportunity.
Stephen Williams
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, except the part about the cross in the box—I would prefer it to be a 1-2-3 arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the curriculum, which has changed markedly over the past decade. History and religious education are taught quite differently from when most of us studied them in school, which enables young people to understand their place in society and weigh up controversial issues. Personal, social, health and economic education has been introduced to the curriculum, as has citizenship. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) presided over an inquiry into the teaching of citizenship when I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, and it is now well embedded in schools, particularly in England and Wales, and has transformed young people’s knowledge of our democratic processes.
Mr Sheerman
Yes, the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee with me when we looked at citizenship, and at that time citizenship was up and coming and thriving. Since 2010, however, partly through the policies of the Government of whom his party is part, we have seen a steep decline in citizenship being taken seriously and delivered, and it has been totally marginalised. Is he proud of that?
Stephen Williams
Tempted as I may be to go into that, this debate is about the franchise. I am trying to be as collegiate as possible, and I hope colleagues will do the same.
The teaching of citizenship, to whatever extent, has transformed the ability of young people to understand and engage with the political system. Indeed, the Hansard Society’s latest audit of political engagement—which I am sure we have all studied in great detail—offers the teaching of citizenship as an explanation for why, over the nine years in which it has studied public engagement in Parliament and politics, the only growth in an understanding of Parliament among the population was in the youngest cohort. When the society started its audit, only 17% of young people aged 18 to 24 felt that they had some knowledge about the workings of Parliament, but that has now grown to 31%. Some improvement is still needed, but that cohort is now broadly in line with the rest of the population.
Extra-curricular activities have also changed enormously over the past decade. The UK Youth Parliament debated in this Chamber and in the other place, as has been mentioned, and I should also mention Parliament’s own education outreach service, of which I am sure we have all had good experience. It has transformed the ability of school visiting parties, and the outreach programme in our constituencies helps schools that are not able to come to Westminster to understand how we make law and run elections.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I fully support the motion and hope to vote on it in the Division. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most offensive argument against this motion is that only some—not all—16 to 18-year-olds would want to vote in elections. Does not that holds true for all ages and demographics across the country? I find that the most offensive of all the arguments, and I know that all 16, 17 and 18-year-olds in my constituency fully support the measure under debate.
Stephen Williams
It is interesting how colleagues across the Chamber are neatly anticipating in their interventions the next points I will be making. We have never had an electoral competence test in this country, although I have heard people advocate one. We have all, I am sure, been canvassing and been outside the shopping centre or even the school gate, and rolled our eyes or walked down the path in despair after hearing opinions that may not have been that well informed from people in their 40s, 50s and 60s. We would never say that the franchise should be withheld from people just because they are stubborn in their opinions or have got a fact completely wrong. We do not have an electoral competence test for people aged 18 and over, so we should not apply it to those aged 16 and 17. Were we to have such a test, I think 16 and 17-year-olds would pass it with flying colours, but I could not have the same confidence for people who are much older than them.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have been in command of soldiers aged 16 and 17 who are desperate to go on operations but are not allowed to because this country considers them still to be children. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a 16-year-old should be able to vote—presumably to send our soldiers to war— but cannot go to war themselves until they are 18. Extraordinary!
Stephen Williams
I do not think it is extraordinary. As I said earlier to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I have no problem with having different ages for different rights and responsibilities. Some people disagree with me about that and want 16 to be the common age, but that is not the position I hold.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
One of my constituents had not reached his 18th birthday when he was killed in Afghanistan. What direction of travel should the Government be taking? If we are to protect our youngsters from being killed, we should not be forcing extra responsibilities on them when they should be doing their exams at school.
Stephen Williams
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think he should compare giving a person the opportunity to vote—voting takes five or 10 minutes every five years, or every four years for council elections—with sending them to war. The debate is purely on the merits of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Those who support that change believe they have the maturity to exercise that right and responsibility. I make no comment about other rights and responsibilities.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of people having the maturity to make such decisions, but not too long ago, the House, presumably with his support, voted to increase the age at which people are allowed to buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. If he and the House believe that people at age 16 are not capable of making a decision on whether or not to smoke, why does he believe they are capable of deciding which party should be in government?
Stephen Williams
We have heard four similar interventions from coalition colleagues, and I have the same answer. I do not believe there is an absolute age at which every single right and responsibility accrues. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I agree that there are very good health grounds for tobacco control and for making 18 the responsible age for consuming a product that is harmful to health. I would say exactly the same about alcohol.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I say, through my hon. Friend, to our more doubtful colleagues, that the overwhelming reason is that youngsters at school are, in my experience, educated to be citizens and to play a full part? If we separate the date when they have the education and the interest is aroused from the date when they can register and do something, we lose them—bluntly—potentially for five, 10 or 15 years, or for ever.
Stephen Williams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was the first Member to attempt to make this change—in, I believe, 1999, when he was crushed by 400 votes to 36. I hope we will have a markedly different result today. He is right that this generation of young people have had all the educational opportunities to understand the democratic system, yet we continue to withhold from them the opportunity to put that knowledge into practice. We should not continue to withhold the vote from the best-educated generation of young people.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, one important point to make—I want to make it before the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) leaves the Chamber, because it relates to a point he made—is on under-18s dying when they go to war. Surely decisions on who goes to war and when affect 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. If they can die for their country, surely they should be able to participate in making the decision on whether their country, for which they are dying, goes to war in the first place.
Stephen Williams
I entirely agree with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. Mercifully, very few people die in modern warfare. Interestingly—I have looked at debates on the matter from around the world—the US originally lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 because of the Vietnam draft. The hon. Lady’s point has therefore been well made in other places.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
People gave many reasons why women should not have the vote, but for many years, women had the vote and were not allowed to go to war. To argue that certain people are not allowed to go into the theatre of war and therefore should not have the vote is somewhat false. Are hon. Members saying that women should not vote on going to war because they are not able to go into theatre?
Stephen Williams
The hon. Lady is right. As a student of psephology and political history, I know that all sorts of peculiar characteristics of the franchise have existed in various parts of the country going back hundreds of years. The debate is on removing another undue restriction on the franchise.
As well as being very well educated, this generation of young people also has the opportunity to be very well informed. For this debate, I reread Hansard from 1968, when the Representation of the People Act 1969 was first debated—I also reread it prior to my debate seven and a half years ago. Members at the time expressed their worry that young people aged 18 were not mature enough to cast independent judgment, and in particular judgment that was independent of their parents or older siblings. As the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) alluded to, those arguments have been advanced every single time the franchise has been altered. Going all the way back to 1832, different excuses have been made why particular sets of the population cannot be trusted with the right to vote. Similar things were said about the rights of women in 1918 and prior to that, and about poor working men.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I partly endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Certainly, what I see when I meet 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency at various schools and colleges supports the fact that they can make some informed choices. However, if we say, on health grounds and so on, that people have to be over the age of 18 to be able to make an informed choice about alcohol, smoking and pornography, we cannot dissociate the two—we have to be uniform.
Stephen Williams
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier when I answered similar points from his Conservative colleagues. I do not believe in a single age of rights and responsibilities. There are ages when rights accrue, but they happen before the age of 16. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is a barrister and will correct me if I am wrong, but the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 12, so we have different ages for a variety of rights and responsibilities. I see no reason why that is an impediment to extending the franchise to 16.
Stephen Williams
I am going to make a little progress. I have given way to everyone who has intervened for the first time, and I know many other hon. Members wish to speak.
As I was saying, these excuses have been used every time anyone has proposed extending the franchise, but in 2013 young people do not just have a good education, they have information at their fingertips via their phones and iPads. They are able to absorb information from all over the world in a completely different way to that contemplated by anyone back in 1968 when this House last debated and then voted to lower the franchise. Family pressure will always be there. We have all met people who say that they vote Labour or Conservative because their family always voted that way. Now, however, there are plenty of countervailing views not just in school or college, but in the bedroom and living room via the internet, where people can weigh up how they see the world and how they want to play their part in changing it, or indeed keeping it the same, if that is their political persuasion.
The longstanding justification for changing the voting age has been the range of rights and responsibilities that various Members have mentioned. There is a long list, from the right to drive a car, the right to join the Army or a trade union, and the right to receive benefits or pay taxes. The waters have been a little bit muddied in this area, partly because of my party being in the coalition, because young people on the minimum wage no longer pay income tax thanks to the fact that we have raised the income tax threshold. Of course, they still pay national insurance and VAT, so Jefferson’s maxim of no taxation without representation still stands.
Philip Davies
On that point, people pay tax based on their income, not their age. Presumably, massively talented child actors who earn an absolute fortune working on films pay tax on their income if it goes above a certain threshold. If an eight-year-old child star earns a fortune and therefore has to pay tax on that income, is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the view that that eight-year-old should be able to vote?
Stephen Williams
I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pick an argument with somebody who was a tax consultant before he became an MP. Such a person—Daniel Radcliffe or whoever else he was thinking of—would probably have that income held in trust by their parents until they reached the age of 16, or whatever the trust says, and the tax allowance goes with the parents. It used to be a classic bit of tax avoidance.
There are plenty of different ages where there are different rights and responsibilities, from the right to be tried in court for a criminal act performed from the age 12 onwards to receiving different amounts of minimum wage up until the age of 21. I think the most compelling comparison of all is the right to marry, which will be extended when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is introduced, and the age of consent to sex. Surely the act of bringing another human being into the world is much more fundamental than the opportunity to vote. If we think that young people are capable of being good parents at the ages of 16 and 17, surely they can have the right to go and vote.
Giving young people the right to vote would also rebalance the changing demographics of the franchise. We all know the power of the grey vote and the higher tendency of pensioners to turn out and vote. The Inter- generational Foundation has recently published an interesting report—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are very interested in the output of the Intergenerational Foundation, about which the hon. Gentleman will seek to advise us in a moment. We are listening to his speech with great interest and he has generously taken a large number of interventions, but I hope I can predict with confidence that he is approaching his concluding remarks, as a large number of other Members wish to speak and I am keen to ensure that they do.
Stephen Williams
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With that advice—not only to me, but to other colleagues perhaps not to seek to intervene on me—I will be able to get through the rest of my speech quite quickly.
The Intergenerational Foundation has published a report on the rise of what it calls the gerontocracy—to summarise, the fact that the will of the old is trumping the needs of the young. We have had all sorts of debates recently—about the winter fuel allowance and so on—that are characteristic of that. It is a statistical fact—there are many statistical facts in that report—that there are more 63-year-olds who are able to vote than 18-year-olds. However, this is not simply about the absolute numbers of older people who are able to vote. We also know that their tendency to turn out and vote is higher, while 18 to 24-year-olds under the current franchise have the lowest tendency to turn out.
That takes me back to an earlier intervention. One of the reasons why that cohort has a low tendency to turn out is that most people in that group miss the opportunity to vote when they turn 18. It happened to me—I was 18 in 1984, and so was not able to vote for the first time until the 1987 general election. Now that we have guaranteed five-year Parliaments, someone who turned 18 in, say, mid-May 2010 will be 23 before they can vote in the next general election. Lowering the franchise from 18 to 16 will bring down slightly the average age at which people first cast their vote, from their early 20s to about 19 perhaps. The idea that swathes of 16 year-olds will be deciding the election is therefore simply not true.
Lowering the voting age to 16 also makes it more likely that people will vote while they are in the stable environment of home and education. Voting is habitual. We know from various studies that if someone votes for the first time when they are just 18, they pick up the pattern of voting for later life. Lowering the voting age also makes it easier to register—a point made earlier. In Northern Ireland, where individual voter registration is ahead of England and Wales, 16 and 17-year-olds are now registered in school. Registering 16-year-olds would be quite easy to do and add 1.5 million to the franchise—about 2,500 voters in each English constituency and different amounts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
If my 2005 Bill had been accepted, the UK would have been a trailblazer, but not now. Austria, which has been mentioned, extended the vote in 2007. In German local elections, the Bürgermeister of Hannover can be elected by 16-year-olds, but those wishing to vote for the mayor of Bristol, which is twinned with Hannover, have to wait until they are 18. Brazil—the fourth largest democracy in the world—gives the right to vote to 16-year-olds and Argentina extended that right just two months ago. However, it is here in the British Isles that the most fundamental change has taken place: 16 and 17-year-olds are now able to vote in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, but it is in the devolved nations that the most profound change has taken place. On 4 July the Welsh Assembly voted to reduce the voting age to 16, and on 6 November the Northern Ireland Assembly did the same—but the power lies with us. Most profoundly of all, in the Scottish referendum, which I am sure we will hear about shortly, 16 and 17-year-olds will be given the right to cast their votes, in what I think will be a much more important referendum than the one we heard about yesterday—one that decides the future of the United Kingdom. If Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds can vote on the future of the UK, surely it would be untenable to withhold that right from their English, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts.
The genie is now out of the bottle. An old political maxim is “Trust the people”. We trust young people to be parents, we trust them to defend our country and we trust them with the future of the United Kingdom. Surely it is now time for us to trust 16 and 17-year-olds with the right to elect us to this House.
Philip Davies
I would like to, but, as I said earlier, I want to give others an opportunity to speak.
The point is that although those young people are capable of asking very intelligent and searching questions, it does not immediately follow that we should give them the vote. If that were the basis on which we were making these decisions, I would have to agree to give seven-year-olds, eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds the vote because they ask some of the most searching questions. So it is completely spurious to trot that argument out as a way of saying that these people should be able to vote. This is not just about people’s education, intellect or ability to ask searching questions; it is about people’s life experience, too. That is what gives people the basis on which to vote. It seems to me that 18 is a far better cut-off point than 16. I am perfectly happy to concede that these are matters of individual judgment, but I believe that 18 is the right point.
The main point I want to make relates to this idea about people’s education and intellect, and how well-informed they are. Hon. Members have been telling us that that level is higher than ever. If this was a matter of principle, I would have more respect for their opinion. If they held a deep-seated principle that 16-year-olds have the education and information to make these informed decisions, I would have more respect for it, even though I might not agree with it. But that is not the case, because all the people who have so far advocated reducing the voting age to 16 are exactly the same people who voted to increase the age at which people could decide to smoke from 16 to 18. The point is that people are either informed or they are not—they are either educated or they are not. They are not educated on one matter of voting but completely clueless on everything else. They can either make an informed decision or they cannot. I agreed with increasing the age at which people could buy cigarettes to 18, because I believe that 18 is the right age at which to trust people to make such decisions. It is entirely logical to have the voting age and the age at which people can buy cigarettes at 18, because 18 is the age at which people should be able to make those decisions.
Philip Davies
I cannot give way because of the time pressures. It is completely illogical to say that people are so well-informed that they should be able to vote but they have no idea about whether or not they should smoke. People say, “Well, smoking is harmful for you”; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) says that it is a matter of public health. But that is an argument for banning smoking altogether. If people wish to say that they want to ban smoking altogether, let them say that—but they do not do so. They say, “We want people to be 18 before they are able to make that kind of informed choice.” People have not been arguing for banning smoking; they have been arguing for raising the age limit to 18. The same should apply to voting as applies to smoking. It cannot be that one is suitable for 16-year-olds and one is suitable for 18-year-olds, as that is simply illogical. Therefore, it is not a matter of principle for people that 16-year-olds are able to make these informed choices; it is a matter of convenience.
There is nothing so nauseating and ridiculous as seeing MPs trying to court the youth vote—trying to appear trendy by wanting to pursue these sorts of youth matters. That is what this is all about; it is about MPs trying to look trendy and youthful in their constituencies. To be perfectly honest, it is rather pathetic. It would be better if they at least had some sound logic behind their views and really did trust 16-year-olds to make decisions—all decisions. What we have heard today is hon. Members saying that they believe that 16-year-olds are capable of voting but are not capable of making other decisions that affect their lives. Voting can be very harmful. I say to hon. Members that if the public ever decided to put the lot on the Labour Benches into government again, that would be very harmful to them. So it is not just smoking that is harmful when people make a bad decision at 16; voting can be a very harmful thing, too.
I believe that people should make a decision at the age of 18 on all these matters, be it whether to smoke, whether to drink alcohol and whether to vote. The people who take an opposite view have not yet persuaded me and they have not come up with any logical reason to support their belief that the smoking age should be increased from 16 to 18 whereas the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16. It is a nonsensical argument and I do not support it.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I am conscious of the fact that we have only just over an hour before the start of the wind-ups, so I shall keep my comments brief.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and although I disagree with her general argument, she made a very good point about the fact that even among young people there is no single view on the matter. I accept that many statistics show that a majority of 16 and 17-year-olds, when asked, suggest that they would be in favour of having the right to vote. That is not surprising, is it? At that age, young people want to get on in life and to get things quicker than the law allows. I am sure that if we were to ask them whether they would like to be able to go into a pub and buy alcohol, the majority would probably say yes.
It is encouraging that 16 and 17-year-olds are interested in political matters and the political process. I have no doubt that that interest means that many of them would like to vote, but we know from the turnout figures that very few 18 to 21-year-olds vote—often less than half. I do not say that that is a reason for not giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, because, as has been said, people do not have to vote. We do not have compulsory voting in this country.
Let me clear up one point made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about young people having to wait five years before they can vote in a general election. That is true for people who turn 18 the day after the last general election now that we have fixed-term Parliaments, but it was equally true in 1992 and 2005, when there were five-year Parliaments. In all areas of the country, there will be opportunities to vote in local elections before the next general election. Of course, millions of young people in metropolitan areas will be able to vote in elections three years out of every four. That is true of my constituency, as it is of the whole of Greater Manchester.
It has been mentioned that some countries have reduced the voting age to 16 or 17, but there are also countries where the voting age is higher. It is 20 in Japan and 21 in Pakistan and Malaysia, so there are international comparators where the age at which young people can vote is higher. There is an argument that making young people wait until they are 18 before they can vote shows how important and serious the act of voting is. The Youth Citizenship Commission examined the question of lowering the voting age in 2009 and found that it was not the main factor affecting engagement in the political process. It stated that
“the issue is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.”
Back in 2004, the Electoral Commission carried out a full review of the age of electoral majority and concluded that the minimum age for voting should remain at 18.
Stephen Williams
The Electoral Commission concluded at that time that the voting age should not be reduced, but said that it should be kept under constant review. That was nine years ago, which is why we are having this debate today.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and congratulate him on securing the debate. It has given the House the opportunity to give the subject an airing, for which I am sure we are all grateful, whichever side of the debate we are on.
It is not that long ago in the history of this country that the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 and we are now debating whether to reduce it from 18 to 16.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always difficult, knowing that one is going to be pretty much a lone voice on the Opposition Benches opposing the motion. I have to tell my colleagues that I have done it before and it is good for the soul, and I will probably do it again. May I make a confession? I used to be in favour of lowering the voting age. Then I became Chairman of the Education Committee, then Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. It was my experience as Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee that changed my mind.
From the evidence that we heard across a range of inquiries, it became clear to me that we live in a world where childhood is being truncated and squeezed all the time. We live much longer. We are all going to live to 90 and goodness knows what age—I think it is predicted that children born now will live to 100. As a percentage of the lifespan, childhood is a very brief period. I want to celebrate childhood. I want children to be able to indulge in it and have a wonderful time. Childhood is about so many things—education, experience, learning, fun and being irresponsible in so many ways. I passionately believe that we should not squeeze childhood.
In my lifetime, childhood has been squeezed inexorably. Just look at the commercial pressures on young people today. Take advertising. Look at the pressures on children to conform—to buy the right trainers, to have the right computer and the right mobile phone. The pressure on childhood from the commercial world is tremendous. We as politicians have done pretty little about defending childhood from commercial pressures. Indeed, the one time I deeply fell out with my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) was when, as Minister, he allowed product placement on television. What do we drink? Coca Cola, because there it is on the screen. The commercial pressures on childhood have been extreme over recent years. [Interruption.] It may be hilarious that there is commercial pressure. I do not think it is hilarious. I think it is deeply worrying.
I have increasingly spent time looking at the very vulnerable children in our society. We should all reflect on how many young people were involved in the Jimmy Savile case and other cases, and on the gangs in our towns throughout the country. There is a famous case going through the courts at present and there have been many more over the winter where vulnerable girls—particularly girls, but sometimes boys as well—have been targeted. There are protections in our laws that take childhood through to 18. I know that we cannot apply that to everything, but 18 gives us a standard by which to judge how far childhood goes. Eighteen is the maximum age. Others have argued that people can get married at 16, but that is only with their parents’ consent.
I am in favour of keeping childhood. I am also in favour of keeping the protections of childhood. As we allow these to slip to a younger and younger age—
Mr Sheerman
No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman, who is a great friend of mine, made quite a long speech. I want to carry on making my case.
I believe that pushing childhood back makes many young children vulnerable at a crucial age. Those of us who have spent time with children—I have four children and oodles of grandchildren—know that they are very vulnerable between the ages of 14 and 18. We can wish that away or pretend it is not the case, but my experience as Chairman of the Education Committee and then of the Children, Schools and Families Committee has taught me that that is a very sensitive age for young people.
I understand where the motion is coming from. It is a fashionable cause at present. When the president of the Liberal party back in those days, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), made that speech and moved that motion, I remember that people said, “Oh, it’s only those trendy Liberal Democrats looking for young votes,” and I said, “No, no, he is a man of honour and he believes this for very good reasons.” My own party has been won over. The deputy leader of my party and others have become passionate about it. I opposed lowering the voting age being in our manifesto and believed it was wrong—again, because I believed it made the protection of children a lesser issue than it might otherwise be.
Stephen Williams
The Backbench Business Committee wanted me to demonstrate that this topic was interesting and controversial enough to spark a debate. I think that has been proven beyond all doubt today, with more than 30 Members speaking, either through speeches or interventions. There has been huge interest, too, outside the Chamber on Twitter. There are lots of people in the Public Gallery today and I thank the British Youth Council for organising that.
Some hon. Members have said that those of us who are in favour of lowering the voting age are trying to curry favour or be trendy. In the 1968 debate, the word used was “groovy”. No one has ever accused me of being groovy, or even cool, to use the modern term. A serious point was made about consistency—whether certain rights should be granted at 16 or 18. Surely we can all agree that we should protect young people from the things that are bad—going to war or smoking, which will kill people eventually—and give them the opportunity to do something that is good: voting.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I respect, and indeed am rather fond of, talked about the commercialisation and sexualisation of children. What those of us who want this change are trying to achieve is democratisation for 16 and 17-year-olds. It has been done in many other countries. It currently exists for British citizens in Crown dependencies and will happen next year in Scotland, on the very future of our United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) summed up the views of all of us who want to see this change: there are principled and practical reasons that now all point in the same direction of allowing 16-year-olds to vote.
I have a Bill ready; it is published today. All we want to do now is test the will of the House and demonstrate to the Government that we want the time and the opportunity for the Bill to become an Act, so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very serious point. Anybody who has visited Afghanistan or examined the conflict there will know that there was never any prospect of a military solution alone. In a sense, all that military intervention can do is create the space in which social and political stability can take root. I share his concerns that we are still some way from that. It is immensely important at this stage, as we are moving towards real transition in Afghanistan, that we include other countries in the region, notably Pakistan, so that they play their full part and bring their influence to bear in order that political stability can indeed take root in Afghanistan.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his speech this morning plotting the advances made by children on free school meals. Some of the schools in my constituency have more than 50% of pupils on free school meals. Will he undertake to increase the value of the pupil premium over the life of this Parliament so that the schools already making huge progress can build on their achievements so far?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The pupil premium is currently worth £1.25 billion, and that will double to £2.5 billion by the end of this Parliament. That is additional money on top of the baseline funding provided to schools. Last year, on a per pupil basis, the pupil premium was worth about £480. It is now worth £600 and will go on to increase. Given those statistics, it is remarkable that Labour in Manchester voted to scrap the pupil premium altogether. How on earth is that going to help social mobility?
Party Funding
Stephen Williams Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, I met Christopher Kelly after he published his independent report on party funding. He made it quite clear to us that it was a package of measures from which no political party should cherry-pick. Should not the onus be on the Government and other party leaders to implement the Kelly report, which does have a £10,000 donation limit, which would be compensated for with modest state funding of 50p per elector?
Mr Maude
I refer my hon. Friend to what our mutual right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in response to the Kelly report: at this time of great financial stringency, we do not think it would be acceptable for the Government to put forward an increase in state funding to make up for a deficiency caused by such a low cap. We think that a cap above that level could be sustainable without additional state funding and would give great comfort that the system was incapable of being abused.
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
Stephen Williams Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Afriyie
Indeed he should.
The report contains two pretty uncontroversial recommendations, and again this brings me to the second misrepresentation. The first recommendation, which is for the Government, is that the primary duty of the independent regulator and its administration should be to support MPs to perform their duties cost-effectively and efficiently. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the constitutional historians we spoke to recommended that, as virtually every body in the world has that kind of line in their legislation. There is no time limit on that, so we recommend that the Government should at some point get around to doing that, and I urge them to do so.
IPSA is unique in being both the regulator and administrator of an expenses system. The second recommendation is that the law should be updated to enable the separation of those two functions. We are not saying that the administration function should definitely come to the House of Commons. We say nothing of the sort. We are not going to recreate the old Fees Office, which would be absolute madness, so that will not happen. However, we should be able to separate those two functions within the legislation, and I urge the Government—there is no need to answer this now—to make headway and look at how we might facilitate that while ensuring that the regulatory role is entirely independent of the House.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
As a member of the Committee, I would like to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his patience in trying to reconcile the views of the Committee. On the point he is making, in addition to the separation of IPSA’s regulatory and administrative functions, was not another stark factor presented to the Committee the extraordinarily expensive way IPSA administered a relatively small number of transactions and the fact that many other organisations, whether inside the House of Commons or elsewhere, could do that for much better value for money for the taxpayer?
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I are more than happy to look at that example. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has recommended that a new offence should be created and of course we will look at that—it is always right to look at suggestions from such a distinguished Committee. Under the current offences, only 144 people were prosecuted out of the millions of people on the electoral register last year. That suggests that some of the other things we are doing, such as data matching and making sure that everybody is approached in 2014 to get them on to the register, might be a higher priority than once again creating more new criminal offences on the statute book.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has the opportunity in this Parliament to continue the work that was started a century ago by his predecessor, Asquith, and reform the House of Lords? Does he agree that the absolute bare minimum of progress would be the removal of the remaining hereditary peers and the Church of England bishops?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, our proposals are now subject to extensive scrutiny in a Committee that I hope will report in the early months of next year. I have always believed, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that those who make the laws of the land should in some way or another be accountable to those who have to obey the laws of the land. That founding democratic principle, which is respected in legislatures all around the democratic world, is one that I should like to see installed in the other place as well.
Public Disorder
Stephen Williams Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This was not about race, it was about crime.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
My constituency in Bristol West had violent disorder not only this week but in April, and we appreciate the strong words that the Prime Minister has used today. In dealing with the deeper issues in society, does he agree that people who feel marginalised from society are much more likely to listen to and then respect those strong words if people at the other end of the social spectrum not just in the board room, as the Leader of the Opposition said, but rather more popular people in society do not display such venal and conspicuous consumption behaviour that sets such a bad example for people who are following them?
House of Lords Reform
Stephen Williams Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Williams
I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I have great sympathy with my noble Friend’s comments.
The Government’s critics have mentioned a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of other Bills, but that is precisely why we have set up the Joint Committee, which is about to undertake such work, and why it is important to have a robust House of Lords, which will continue its function in scrutinising legislation. As someone who worked in the other place many years ago, I understand the sort of detailed scrutiny that was undertaken.
The expertise in the other place has been mentioned. I must say that that debate is 20 years out of date. When I was there 20 years ago, I had the privilege of sharing an office with a former lecturer at the London School of Economics, a former chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, a former chairman of the National Coal Board and a former Minister for the arts. The composition of that House is very different now. It is dominated by people who have served in this place. Without being rude to those people, they spend a short time on the red Benches and go native.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the expertise of the other place is a myth, because in fact there are many elected experts in this House? Experts have nothing to be afraid of in standing for election to this House. They could gain legitimacy to add to their expertise.
Mr Mark Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, with which I of course agree. I simply observe that the points made about expertise in the other place are largely historical ones.
When the House of Lords operates well, it can make significant improvements to legislation, as we have seen recently in the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. I would hazard a guess that that will be vastly improved when it comes here shortly. That scrutiny role is vital, which is why we need to be clear on the role and responsibilities of a reformed second Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the codification of those roles in a written constitution, but as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, that is not the direction in which we are going.
Despite what some Opposition Members have said, the Parliament Act makes clear the primacy of this House. However, we need to make it clear to the public, who may not be as engaged in the debate as some of us would wish, that we expect senators or Lords, or whatever the Joint Committee decides to call them, to have a very different role.
Doubtless there will be questions about the size of a second Chamber. In this climate, the Government are absolutely right to have a streamlined House with committed Members. In the 2009-10 Session, only 281 out of 792 peers attended more than 75% of sittings; 85 attended less than 10%; and 46 did not attend at all. We need to ensure that the membership of the House is large enough for it to function adequately, and so that it can provide members for all its Committees and ensure healthy debate. I am not sure whether the agreed number will be 300, but that problem needs to be addressed by the Joint Committee. Importantly, the draft Bill alludes to the statutory appointments commission and independent 10-year terms for commissioners.
There is a risk of competing mandates, which should be avoided. My experience of Welsh devolution and the National Assembly for Wales is that there is no problem of legislatures and those who make laws knowing about their responsibilities. However, 12 years on, public confusion on the role of MPs and AMs remains. Perhaps that will wane in time.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I am not entirely opposed to reform of the House of Lords, but I am deeply sceptical about the idea of an elected House of Lords. The simple fact is that there is far more to a successful democracy than elections. Many people have said that the reason why we must have elections for the House of Lords is to give it legitimacy. That is not the right argument. Lots of institutions in our democracy do not need elections to make them legitimate. Judges and magistrates are not elected, and we have a monarch who is not elected. All these parts of our constitution play a very important role despite the fact that they are not elective.
Stephen Williams
Judges and magistrates exist in our constitution to pass judgment over people who have broken laws. They are not there to make laws, which is what the House of Lords is for.
George Eustice
I accept that to some extent, although judges often make public policy decisions, and those judgments influence our legal system. However, my point is that we do not need elections for these institutions to be legitimate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Williams Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes an important point. When we established the pupil premium, we had a number of discussions to try to work out the best basis to put it on. In the short term, the free school meals indicator was the best basis. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting between her and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to see what we can do to make sure that we really are targeting those most in need. There may be opportunities, perhaps not this year but in the future, to make sure that the pupil premium is helping those who most need it.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport made a most welcome announcement on the electrification of the Great Western main line to Bristol, Cardiff and the south Wales valleys, including the fact that the jobs producing those trains will be in the north-east of England. Does not this show that the coalition Government not only have a strategy for growth but that that vision for growth is both high-tech and green?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In 13 years, the previous Government never electrified the west coast main line out to Cardiff. We have managed to announce it within nine months. He is absolutely right. The good news is not just the electrification of the line to Cardiff, but the new factory in Newton Aycliffe that will build the trains and that we are pressing ahead with High Speed 2.