Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Peter Kyle(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Offering accommodation in return for sex is illegal, and those who do so can face up to seven years in prison. The Minister for Policing has committed to engage with technology companies, including craigslist, and to press them to meet their responsibility to provide their services safely and to prevent them from being used for criminal activity.
Peter Kyle
When sexual exploitation occurs on the streets of this country, the police act, yet craigslist is facilitating and profiting from sexual exploitation through sex for rent, and nothing is happening whatsoever. They are acting like pimps; why are we not treating them like pimps?
Victoria Atkins
That is a very strong message to craigslist and one that the Government are happy to engage with it on and ask what is going on with its website. One only has to look at some of the adverts to see the coded and yet all too obvious messages they contain. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work that he is doing on this, but the difficulty, as he knows, is that the evidence for victims is pretty difficult to get hold of because, understandably, people can be reluctant to give evidence. One of the first jobs on our to do list is to speak to craigslist and other tech companies to tackle this.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Peter Kyle
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman said “over 70,”; I thought that he said “over 17”. I do not agree with him. First, it would be a brave politician who wanted to take votes away from people aged over 70. Perhaps some of my colleagues will send out press releases about that after the debate. On the hon. Gentleman’s point—this is also applicable to service in the armed forces, and so on—by the age of 70, an individual will have been available for civic duty for more than 50 years. [Interruption.] This point also applies to those who have been discharged from the Army. Someone who has had more than 50 years’-worth of civic responsibility does not lose any rights. That is the difference between 16 and 17-year-olds and people who are aged over 70.
A point has been made about taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made an interesting and fair point about national insurance; some 16-year-olds pay national insurance. At the risk of worrying the Chancellor in the run-up to the Budget, I can see merit in the suggestion that if people do not have the vote before 18, that element of taxation should be taken away from them. I appreciate that that is an uncosted proposal, and I am not suggesting for a moment that we adopt it, but I can see the merit in it. Indeed, 16 and 17-year-olds are exempted from paying council tax, so there is already a precedent, which could be extended further.
My final point—to answer the intervention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—is that I do not see how we can say that someone can vote to elect their representative in this place and yet not have open to them the privilege of standing for Parliament. We would effectively be saying, “You cannot vote for yourself. You may have been born in your constituency and spent your entire life there, but you cannot stand for Parliament to represent that constituency.”
Peter Kyle
That is the first compliment of the day, and I appreciate it. People who have been bankrupt are not allowed to stand for this place. Does the hon. Lady think that they should have the vote stripped from them as well?
Victoria Atkins
Crikey! To turn the argument around, are we really comparing 16 and 17-year-olds to bankrupts? No. In the case of bankruptcy, certain civic responsibilities and rights—for example, the right to become a director of a company—are taken away from an individual because of their behaviour. I am not saying that 16 and 17-year-olds do not deserve the right to vote because of their behaviour. I am saying that having the right to vote would not be consistent with their civic responsibilities. That is my argument.
This is a wide-ranging debate—