Human Rights (Egypt)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend articulates the exact question that many Governments have to ask themselves—how best do we influence and exert change in those countries that need encouragement to take steps forward to a more open and democratic space. One way of doing that is by shouting from afar in the hope that we can exact change. The other way to facilitate change is by engaging with those countries, having private conversations with them and providing assistance and expertise. I am afraid that that way is not so open or overt, but it is, I believe, a better way to achieve change than by shouting from afar.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. In his comments, he suggested that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may believe that democracy and respect for human rights are less of a priority than financial prosperity and stability. Does the Minister not accept that those priorities are the wrong way round? Any Government who are founded on democracy and respect for human rights will see that stability and prosperity inevitably follow. A Government who are founded on oppression and denial of human rights will never be stable and will never govern a prosperous country. Will the Minister assure the House that the FCO will review its priorities and will, in all cases, put democracy and respect for human rights at the top of its list of priorities?

[Mr Ellwood]

At the beginning of this year, I had the honour of taking 50 companies on a delegation to Cairo, and we visited the new Suez Canal as well. It was during the private meetings there that we were able to raise many of those issues. Companies will not invest in places if they do not feel secure and that there is an advancement in human rights, the rule of law and the judicial process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I make it very clear that I never shy away from any opportunity in any country to raise concerns on human rights. It will not necessarily make the front pages of the local newspapers or even here, but I can guarantee that these matters are raised by us, by the Department for International Development and, where appropriate, by the Ministry of Defence.

China (Human Rights)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I do not regard as ridiculous more than £30 billion-worth of investment from China into the UK, let alone into our nuclear industry. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous Government had paid more attention to the gap in our energy provision, we would not find ourselves in the position we are in.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome a lot of the words we have heard from the Minister today—when they are turned into actions we start to get somewhere. As well as making the point that the nations represented here give a good example of the fact that dissent and disagreement from official Government policy does not represent a threat to national security, does he agree that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and so any nation that carries out wholesale executions of its population is in breach of fundamental human rights? During this week’s visit, will the Government be specifically encouraging the Chinese Government to take steps towards the complete abolition of the death penalty? When was the last time the Government made similar representations to the Government of the United States of America, which executes more of its citizens than almost any other nation on the planet?

[Mr Swire]

We are getting a little wide of the mark there, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place but who goes around the world restating British policy against the death penalty. That is our official policy; it is what we use as such at every meeting and we will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is obviously for the Scottish Government to defend their own positions. We always listen seriously to points that Scottish or, for that matter, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers make to us about UK Government policy. At the end of the day it is a United Kingdom-wide policy that we adopt in our dealings with the EU.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Frenchgate memo included an inaccurate account of a private conversation between the French ambassador and the First Minister of Scotland. Which members of staff or Ministers in the Foreign Office were aware of the contents of that memo before it was deliberately leaked by Ministers down here?

[Mr Lidington]

I have a recollection of having seen a report of that. I do not know if it was the actual text. What I remember thinking was that the text itself said that a lot seemed to have got lost in translation. I did not give any credence to it.

European Union Referendum Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and take another intervention.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady think there are lessons to be learned about what happened in Scotland, where there was massive engagement on the part of young people? Also, after a debate very similar to this one in the Scottish Parliament, when people saw what really happened, they stopped being worried about what might happen, so there is now very little opposition in Scotland to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for every election.

[Dr Wollaston]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Who could have watched that extraordinary debate, the most compelling debate of the referendum campaign, with thousands of people in the stadium in Glasgow, without feeling inspired by the opportunity and enthusiasm for the whole campaign and the wide turnout? I believe those young people will continue to be engaged in politics, not just in activism within their communities but in turning out to vote, which is the important issue here. We must increase voter engagement. If we do nothing, we could face a situation within a decade where half the population are simply not turning out to vote. That will have terrible consequences for our democracy.

I shall finish on that note. I really hope that any Members in doubt about the issue who feel that we can kick it into the long grass will ask themselves whether they want to walk into those schools after this debate and tell young people that they have denied them the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I thank him for my first experience of an intervention. Yes, of course, those are potential forms of harm where young people may not be able to see the consequences of their actions. However, as I have said, going into a polling booth, in and of itself, does not present any harm, whereas smoking immediately presents harm to a young person.

[Peter Grant]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the argument against allowing younger people to drink alcohol is not merely social or one of predicting consequences? There is significant medical evidence that the human liver takes longer to develop than once thought, and allowing and encouraging young people to drink alcohol—some would even say up to 21—can have medical effects that are much more severe than they would be for drinking the same amount of alcohol at an older age.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and of course I agree. Again, I draw a contrast between the risks of harm from certain behaviours and the lack of risk of harm from going into a polling booth. The risks of harm from drinking early are well known and well presented. There is a large amount of evidence, as there is on smoking.

The Electoral Reform Society wrote:

“If we get more young people registered early and into the habit of voting, we will not only see lasting improvements in turnout but a lasting improvement in our democracy.”

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see those consequences, for young people and for ourselves. I am not arguing that 16 and 17-year-old young people be termed “adults”. I am simply arguing that they are capable of voting and interested in voting, and the evidence suggests that it would be a good thing generally for democracy that they be allowed to vote. That does not make them adults; they should simply be given the right to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. and learned Lady has greater knowledge of that subject than I do, but I do not know whether her knowledge is greater or less than that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. I will leave it to them to debate that.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman has listed a lot of things that we can choose to do to set our position in society. Does he agree that a significant number of people—citizens of these nations—have chosen to surrender the right to vote in order to take a seat, often at the request of Her Majesty’s Government, in the other place? How can he justify giving them the chance to undo what should have been a permanent decision by giving them the right to vote, but not giving the right to vote to people who have lived here for 25 or 30 years?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to decide whether noble Lords have made such a decision or whether they have simply chosen to access a different seat and therefore surrendered on one, but not every, electoral term. They do not rescind their right to vote universally; they merely rescind their right to vote in general elections, because they already hold a seat in Parliament.

Citizenship is not something to be added or taken away arbitrarily, and that is what we are talking about when it comes to the enfranchisement for the referendum. It is not simply a tactical choice; it is the act of citizenship. In constituency cases, I have been sad to hear time and again people think that they have rights that they do not. Concepts of “common law this” or “common law that” do not exist, and in this case there is no such thing as common law citizenship. If people wish to have citizenship, the laws of citizenship, immigration and naturalisation cover it. If people wish to have citizenship in Her Majesty’s great United Kingdom, they have a choice to ask for it. There are laws that allow them to do so and rules that set out at what stage they can or cannot apply.

As people move through the process of residency in our great kingdom, there are various moments at which they may or may not choose to take that citizenship, and there are consequences that go with that.

--- Later in debate ---

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make that change at a national level, I accept that, but the United Kingdom is a different state. It is a sovereign state that exercises rights on a different basis from the nations of England, Scotland or, indeed, Ireland. Those who have come from across the European continent—my grandfather came from Austria almost 100 years ago—understand that choosing British nationality is just that: it is an active choice and one of which we should be duly proud. It is not something that we should find ourselves with by accident of residency.

[Peter Grant]

Does that mean that those of us on the SNP Benches who never have and never will choose to be British will not be allowed to vote in the referendum?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entertaining point. The fact hat he was born here and has residency here is what gives him citizenship.

As well as the question of citizenship in the constitutional sense, there is also the issue of the referendum’s legitimacy. It would be wrong if we were suddenly to change the deal to benefit those who have a specific interest in doing so. I refer specifically to the hundreds and thousands of migrant workers who affect various states of the debate. We all know that there were some people who tried to get into this House whose principal argument was based on immigration. If we force ourselves to enfranchise those whom many people would not regard as British, the terms of the debate would be changed halfway through. I argue very strongly that that would be unwise and that it would call into question the legitimacy of the referendum itself. We could find ourselves with hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens who have not made the choice to become British citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for squeezing me in towards the end, my having sat here for the past few hours listening to this excellent debate. I am open minded, which is why I have been so delighted to hear the excellent arguments from Members in all parts of the House. I am open minded about the voting age, and I seek to be persuaded by the arguments, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that listing ages as hooks to hang voting on does not work, because there are so many different ages when one might be seen to be turning into an adult.

I do, however, find myself influenced by international comparisons. The voting age for national elections in EU countries is 18, except for in Austria, where it was reduced to 16 in 2007. Internationally, there are only seven countries where 16 and 17-years-olds are able to vote, and there are considerably more where voting starts later than 18. We should take international comparisons into account—and it is to “international” that I make that reference.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his figures are completely up to date? Does he appreciate that as of midnight tonight another nation will be added to the list of proud nations that allow 16-year-olds to vote?

[Huw Merriman]

My information has come from the House of Commons Library, so I am sure it is up to date—it goes up to 2013. It does not make reference to Scotland, but it does say that it is international.

I will not rehearse the arguments—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be lopsided indeed if we were to take a different approach for our nationals than has been done elsewhere in the EU. As I was saying, British citizens were not entitled to vote in the Dutch or French referendums.

Finally, switching from the parliamentary to the local elections franchise would block British citizens living abroad from voting at all, because they are not entitled to vote at local elections. The net effect of the amendments would be to deny British citizens living abroad the right to vote on their own country’s future while giving that right to other Europeans who are living here but have chosen not to become citizens. That strikes me as fundamentally unfair and inequitable. I hope that the hon. Members will withdraw their amendments when the time comes.

We have also heard about the need to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the first time in a UK-wide poll. There are a number of amendments to that effect, in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). This is a referendum about an issue of huge national significance, and the starting point for determining who is entitled to vote must therefore be the franchise for parliamentary elections. Members will be aware that the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18. The voting age was 18 in the 1975 referendum on EC membership and the 2011 alternative vote referendum.

Let us not forget, as a number of Members have pointed out, that the voting age in most democracies, including most member states in the EU, is also 18. Only Austria in the EU currently allows voting at 16, although we have heard that Scotland is now heading in that direction, and that it is just hours away from extending its franchise for Holyrood elections as well, as is their devolved and democratic right. I salute its ability to do that.

Hon. Members have pointed out the precedent of the Scottish independence referendum, which was of course based on the devolved right, as we have heard. It is also right that the decisions about the franchise for elections and referendums that take place throughout the United Kingdom should be taken by this Parliament, in the same way as decisions taken for the franchise for elections to Holyrood are taken by the Holyrood Parliament.

[Peter Grant]

I recognise that this Parliament will take the decision, but will the Minister explain why he is so keen to follow the example set by other EU countries, which so many of his colleagues want to cut us off from, and why he will not follow the example of a country that his colleagues suggest should stay attached to the United Kingdom?

[John Penrose]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). There is a degree of symmetry here and it would be bizarre indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on an issue of such national importance when they cannot vote on their local council and on who collects the bins. This needs to be done on a broader basis, and I shall come on to that point in a minute.

Hon. Members have also said that young people are engaged and politically active. That is absolutely true, but it is also true of many 15-year-olds and not of some 50-year-olds. Political engagement is not a strong enough justification in and of itself for giving or denying the vote. Another argument that we have heard is that people can marry or join the Army at 16, and we have heard of a series of other activities that can or cannot be done at 16, 17, 18 or 21. I think the examples given included driving steam tractors. The important point is that in this country we have always viewed attaining adulthood and majority as a process rather than an event. It is not neat—I do not think it can be—and it varies from person to person and by activity to activity. If we want to compare different activities, the list on the parliamentary website that has been mentioned of things that are allowed at 16, 17, 18 or otherwise includes body piercing and having a tattoo at 18. I do not think that those are necessarily fruitful or relevant comparisons. We need to accept adulthood as a process, not an event, and that it is therefore tricky to deal with.

A number of my colleagues have said that they agree with, or are at least sympathetic to, the principle of votes at 16, but are concerned that it should not be done just for this election. I agree with that point. Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Colchester (Will Quince), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), felt the same way and said that this is an important decision that needs to be taken for the franchise as a whole rather than for an individual election. I believe that that is right and I do not believe that this Bill is the right place to make significant changes to the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

On European matters, it is not always the case that I am in agreement with my hon. Friend, but this time on this point, I am. I entirely agree with his point.

The first reason, then, is that on such a major constitutional question about the country’s future, the focus should be entirely on that question, but there is a second reason why on this occasion it makes sense to separate this poll from other polls, which relates to the discussions we have had about purdah arrangements. Without re-running Tuesday’s debate, the Government’s argument is that there needs to be some qualification of the purdah arrangements that would normally apply. The jury is still out on what the eventual outcome of that argument will be, but we know from Tuesday that the Bill will be amended in one way or another on Report.

However, purdah arrangements also apply to a local election period, so combining the referendum with other elections could mean we had full purdah in place for some things and qualified purdah or no purdah in place for others. In such circumstances, what exactly would the role of Ministers and the civil service be? We could have one set of rules for one poll taking place on that day, and another set of rules for another poll taking place on the same day. We do not need to think long and hard to realise that that is not an ideal arrangement for clarity on the conduct of the poll.

Our point is that the Bill deals with a big constitutional issue, which deserves to be considered by the public on its own merits, not tacked on as an add-on to local elections in various parts of the country. For those reasons, we feel that there is unfinished business from Tuesday. Amendment 55 was not the end of the matter, and our amendment 3 would, if passed, make it clear that this has to be a stand-alone poll and not one combined with other elections—either next May or in May 2017. To conclude, if given an opportunity to do so this afternoon, we intend to press the amendment to the vote.

[Peter Grant]

Briefly, we intend to support amendment 3. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, only part of the problem was addressed earlier, and a major problem remains if the referendum is held on the date of other elections.

First, on a point of principle, if this is truly—certainly for voters in England—the most important democratic constitutional decision taken for 40 or more years, it is surely worth a day of its own rather than being tacked on to something else. A second, practical point is that some of the elections that are listed—the Scottish local government elections, for example—are run according to a completely different electoral system. Last time the local government elections took place on the same day as a straightforward first-past-the-post election, there were well over 100,000 spoilt ballot papers, because those who were voting in the local government elections did not understand how to vote in a different way. The one thing that we do not want is doubt about the result of the EU referendum caused by a lot of spoilt papers.

I am surprised that we are having to debate the impartiality of broadcasters. Members should be aware that there is a widespread perception in Scotland—I will not comment on whether I share it—that some broadcasters were not impartial during the Scottish referendum. I do not think that that tainted the validity of the result, but it has tainted the reputation of those broadcasters, and it may be a generation before it has been sufficiently restored. We need to send the broadcasters a message, whether through legislation or by some other means. We need to convey to them that this referendum has to be fair, which means that the broadcasters must be impartial and seen to be impartial, not only during the purdah but from today. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the referendum was not fair.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I shall deal first with the arguments about combination advanced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I shall then respond to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about electronic voting. If time permits, I shall also say something about clause 3 stand part and conduct rules.

Let me begin with combination. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we settled the issue of May 2016 on Tuesday, by means of amendment 55. In practice, what we are discussing today is whether we should also rule out any possibility of May 2017. I am not yet persuaded that the arguments are sufficiently compelling. The principle ought to be that the timing of a referendum concerning our future in or out of the European Union should be determined by the progress of negotiations at EU level. I suspect that once those negotiations have concluded and the Prime Minister is ready with his recommendation, there will be a pretty strong appetite in all parts of the House of Commons—and, I think, an even stronger one among British voters and, indeed, our partners in the European Union—for the issue to be brought to a head and settled as soon as possible, in so far as that is compatible with a campaigning period that is seen to be fair and that allows all the arguments to be set out clearly so that people can make a well-informed and deliberate choice.

Ultimately, it will be for Parliament itself to decide whether to approve the specific date that the Government propose. The Bill includes an order-making power for the Secretary of State to set down the referendum date, and that date must be approved through a statutory instrument, which must be tabled in accordance with the affirmative procedure. I can give an undertaking that the debate, whenever it comes, will take place on the Floor of the House. It will be for the House of Commons as a whole—and, separately, the House of Lords—to decide whether, in all the circumstances of the time, to agree to the date that the Government have proposed. Given the reservations that have been expressed about a hypothetical combination with local elections in May 2017, the Government will need to make a persuasive case at that time.

The right hon. Gentleman advanced his argument with his characteristic courtesy and in a constructive tone, so I shall try to respond in kind. I think that he underestimates the British public: I think that voters will be able to distinguish between the different outcomes that they want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

24. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in this Chamber.As part of the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment of public support for holding a referendum, what discussions has he had with all parties in Scotland about the massive public support that there is for extending the franchise for the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds, who will, after all, be the people who have to live longest with the result, whatever that might be?

[Mr Hammond]

Our position is that the appropriate franchise for a United Kingdom question—a question about the future of the whole country—is the Westminster franchise. I know there are people in this House who think we should review the scope of the Westminster franchise, and that is another debate. We are very clear that the franchise for this referendum should be the Westminster franchise, and that it would not be appropriate, as an exception, to include 16 and 17-year-olds.