European Union Referendum Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is right; the referendum will affect all of us, but the argument that he is advancing applies equally to 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and to 55-year-olds and 64-year-olds. So he is right, but I am not sure there is a compelling argument for reducing the age just to 16.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I will give way once more, then I must make progress.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I caution him, though, against invoking the somewhat patrician instincts of the Labour Government with regard to the use of sunbeds as a reason for denying 16-year-olds the vote now? He has given us the full list of links, but surely the one link that matters because it comes to the heart of what it is to be represented in this place is that at 16 people pay their taxes.

[John Penrose]

That idea has a long and distinguished history. People were throwing tea into the harbour in Boston, saying “No taxation without representation” a long time ago. However, the argument has grown weaker over time for a number of reasons. First, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who now pay income tax, though not zero, is a great deal lower than it used to be, partly at least because this Government and the previous one raised the threshold for income tax and also raised the school and training leaving age, so the number of people involved in paying income tax is significantly lower than it used to be. Secondly, there are now many more indirect taxes, so any six-year-old who buys whatever it may be will be paying VAT, among other things. Therefore the advent of indirect taxes rather weakens the logical foundations of that argument, one which I used to cleave to myself. I found myself in slightly uncomfortable positions as a result, because I realised that it was an eroded position.

Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it, for two reasons. First, changing the voting age should not be applied to a single vote, even—or perhaps especially—if it is as important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered for all elections collectively and in the round, not piecemeal on an ad hoc case-by-case basis. Given the understandable sensitivity surrounding the EU referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the “remain” or the “leave” campaign. That is why we have chosen to stick with the tried and tested proven general election franchise. If it is good enough for choosing the Government of this country, surely it is good enough for the referendum too, and we should not jiggle around with it for a one-off tactical advantage either way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

Once more, then I will stop and let others have a go.

[Mr Carmichael]

This is probably the most novel aspect of our debate today. It is, of course, for the Speaker to certify whether financial privilege is invoked or not, but it is for the Government to decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for exactly the same issue. What is different now?

[John Penrose]

I think I have just addressed that point. We cannot waive privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons. We therefore need to engage financial privilege, but I am taking the opportunity of this speech and this debate to make sure that those other issues are given an airing as well. I hasten to add that there is nothing new in this. There is a long-established precedent in this House. I shall leave it to the procedural experts to lecture us all on the historical antecedents of financial privilege. We are not creating any sort of unusual precedent here.

I have not sought to repeat or rebut every argument. As I said, the subject has been debated many times in the Chamber already. I have, I hope, given everybody a taste of the issues and stated the Government’s position. The House has expressed its view on this matter many times, and I ask us all to repeat that once more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I am more than happy to say that I meant SNP Members. It seems that whenever the word “Scotland” is mentioned in this place, an SNP Member feels that he or she must stand up and speak on behalf of the whole of Scotland. The Holyrood Parliament has introduced things in Scotland that I would not support in this House. I do not want to jump up and down and argue that everything should be transported across the border. The SNP’s argument that this House should automatically follow its lead in the Scottish referendum is bogus.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Surely the distinction is that it was this House that gave the Scottish Parliament the power to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum. We gave it that power knowing exactly how it was going to be used. We may not have made the change ourselves, but, as the hon. Lady’s noble Friend Lord Dobbs puts it, we acquiesced in it. What is the difference now?

[Mrs Main]

The majority of Members in this House do not support extending the franchise, as has been shown in numerous votes. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, if every 16, 17 and 18-year-old is allowed to do one thing, there is no obvious logical extension that allows them to do something else. We accept that some bizarre rules apply. On voting, however, many of us believe that it is a step too far to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds while at the same time exempting them from other things. I have not heard an SNP Member arguing for 16-year-olds to be Members of Parliament. For me, that is the logical extension of extending the voting franchise to them. I do not believe that a 16-year-old would have the experience, life skills or maturity to represent a constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

After my experience in the previous Parliament, the irony of hearing Conservative Members arguing for reform of the House of Lords is never lost on me.

In the brief time available, the point I am making is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government’s position. In the previous Parliament the Prime Minister gave power to the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise for the Scottish independence referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds. We knew what they were going to do with it and, as Lord Dobbs put it in the other place, the Prime Minister acquiesced in it, and he did so for a number of reasons. He did it because it was the most important vote that we would ever face, because it was to be a once-in-a-generation decision, and because referendums are different. That is exactly the situation that confronts the House today.

On financial privilege, it appears that having lost the argument, the Government now want to play their trump card or pull out a joker to thwart a very laudable aim. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said that we were opposing the use of financial privilege because we do not care about where the money comes from. We do care about where that money comes from because it is paid by—among others—16 and 17-year-old taxpayers. They pay it, so they are entitled to a say.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In the 20 seconds that remain to me—[Interruption.] It is now 19 and counting, so I will not take any interventions. I wish to argue that this measure makes sense. We need to trust our young people and empower them. Let us give them this vote and this chance.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.